Should this be highlighted in the download area at all? That is, to highlight the latest version that works with your version of c#.
Tim On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:16 AM, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > Where I work we still have some .NET 2.0 projects, but there are a few > reasons you could safely get rid of 2.0 support: > > 2.0 users can still use whatever the last existing good 2.0 version > is. > Make a branch and let others run with it if they want to keep the 2.0 > compatibility. > You can also make a test project .NET 3.5 while your code tested is > 2.0 - I've done that on a few projects. > > On Mar 12, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
