Hello, > 1. VB.NET is not "standardized". This is to our advantage for we can > scope and define what mono's VB.NET will or will not support. > > We can leave out certain constructs like supporting error numbers or > mapping error numbers to exceptions. Going down to the last detail as > in retaining error numbers across vbc and mbas2 would be seriously > detrimental to progress and should be avoided at all costs.
The error codes are not standardized in C# either, they were just a useful thing to have. Sure, its some extra work, but it helps finding potential probelms. > Even if we decide to go down this path, we would miss nothing if we > restrict the patches to those that were committed before Anirban took > over. That sounds fine. > Neither am I a C# or VB.NET programmer (in the remotest sense) nor am > I am compiler guru. I am making these observations as a practitioner > and as someone who spared some sincere love over mbas/bmcs. I do have another concern though; Today folks are reporting that VB does not work (and in a sense that is correct, we do not even have full runtime support). I think I might want to move mbas, mbas2, bmcs and the VisualStudio runtime *out* of mcs and not distribute it as part of mono/mcs until they are ready. The runtime in particular is missing enough pieces (from 2.0, but the issue comes up frequently) that I much rather just state that we do not support VB.NEt for the time being. Miguel. _______________________________________________ Mono-vb mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-vb
