I apologize then for the email...anyone have a rough time frame or a link or some keywords to go an search on?
Going to write back to a patch submitter and want to make sure my ducks are in a rowl tim On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Nathan Stott <[email protected]> wrote: > Tim, > There was a discussion a few months ago where it was decided that support > for 2.0 would be discontinued. > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:50 AM, Tim Barcz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The email below is an email I sent Oren after reviewing a patch which >> would add the AAA extension methods to anyone using C# 2.0. As >> everyone is well aware C# 2.0 did not have extension methods, so this >> patch exposes the extensions methods simply as static methods. This >> particular patch aside, I have a broader questions about what >> versions Rhino should support etc. Enough setup, here is the email: >> >> >> Oren, >> >> Been getting into the Rhino source and trying to get familiar with the >> bits on a deeper level than before. Currently I'm taking the patch >> supplied several weeks ago and going through trying to get some of the >> extensions with c# 2.0. >> >> Am wanting to have a discussion with you and the other devs about >> where Rhino is going and what our support for 2.0 should be. I would >> recommend that we remove the Visual Studio 2005 project and all >> support for it (my understanding is that Castle has done this as >> well). It does not currently compile on the trunk (has references to >> CPP interfaces, a missing file). Further, as new work is being added, >> a lot of the items being added are not 2.0 compatible. Two quick >> examples: >> >> * MockRepository ctor has ProxyGenerationOptions created with >> object initializer (added in revision 2069) >> * MockRepository.Stub() uses lambda syntax (added in revision >> 2066) >> >> If we get the 2005 solution working (which I had a version of) we have >> to be very careful about what and how it is added to the project. It >> would seem to me to muddy the solution files with many conditional >> compilation statements (a 2.0 safe version and a 3.0 safe version). >> With C# 4.0 on the horizon if this strategy were adopted I could see >> more complex conditional compilation going on in order to make the >> various compilers happy. >> >> If the extension methods were added to work with C# 2.0 the code would >> look ugly: >> >> IDemo mock = MockRepository.GenerateMock<IDemo>(); >> RhinoMockExtensions.Expect(mock, Action<T> action); >> >> Everything in terms of readability that extension methods and the AAA >> syntax give you seem to be lost. >> >> Am curious what you're thoughts are and the thoughts of others...I >> don't want to overstep my bounds here as the new guy but I see some >> potential red flags about going down the road of trying to get the >> extensions methods working with various framework versions. However I >> have not typically had to deal with releasing a product for multiple >> versions to such a wide audience so I'm using this as an opportunity >> to learn/grow. >> >> Tim >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
