Right, it is more condensed because it is missing the rest of the information. :)
For your example, it is missing the attributes on the parameters. Both files should be exactly the same. Jonathan Alan McGovern wrote: > Well, if you look at the output you'll see that the cecil one is > considerably more condensed and readable than the SRE one, so that could > easily explain the filesize difference. For example, the 'ClearProps(in > System.Byte&, in System.UInt32, in System.Guid&, in System.Int32)' > method is 7 lines in the cecil version but about 24 lines in the SRE > version. > > Alan. > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan Pobst <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > Additionally, I believe that the Cecil-based mono-api-info is a > > better implementation than the SRE-based implementation. And am > > wondering if we should just replace our current implementation > with the > > version living in cecil (this would also eliminate mono-api-info and > > mono-api-info2). > > I just tried running both versions on 2.0's Accessibility.dll. The SRE > one is 122k, the Cecil one is 55k. So I don't think the Cecil one is > ready yet for primetime. > > SRE: http://jpobst.com/Accessibility.xml > Cecil: http://jpobst.com/Accessibility.Cecil.xml > > Jonathan > _______________________________________________ > Mono-devel-list mailing list > Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com > <mailto:Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list > > _______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list