Hi Rupert, > Seems a bit of a shame to me that they didn't include unsigned types > in the CLS. Could be just pass unsinged bytes as shorts and so on, > like we will have to do in the Java code? Not a very elegant solution, > I know.
That seems worse. That said, I think it might be a bit over the top. I think a better option would be to just have CLS-compliant methods available to only CLS-Compliant languages. At least for now. They can always use a bit of casting to get around the rest. On the other hand, at least for headers, which are externally visible, we could always make GetByte()/SetByte() set signed bytes underneath to make it compatible (by force) with the java implementation. Then again, I personally don't plan on using custom byte headers all that much myself :) Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.winterdom.com/weblog/
