lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Nicholson <enichol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CLS Compliance and Compiler Warnings
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:33:01 GMT
Sounds totally reasonable.  Thanks George!

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:17 PM, George Aroush <george@aroush.net> wrote:

> We can clean those up, once we archive a port status such that we can port
> patches over vs. a whole release.  This is because a whole release port
> depends heavily on deltas between releases.  Thus, any extra code changes
> will make a whole port harder.
>
> -- George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Nicholson [mailto:enicholson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:24 AM
> To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: CLS Compliance and Compiler Warnings
>
> I apologize if this has been asked already, but is there any effort
> underway
> or interest in getting Lucene.NET to compile as a CLS-Compliant assembly?
> What about reducing or eliminating the compiler warnings? I know both of
> these would make my build environment a little saner.  Looking at the code
> it looks like there is not much involved in getting it to compile clean.  I
> noticed a few things in particular:
>
> * unused variables - warning
> * protected internal fields with different case than a public property or
> class - non-cls compliant
> * public consts that start with underscore - non-cls compliant
>
> Is there some reason the code needs to stay exactly the way it is (like
> maintaining parity with the Java project)?  It seems like a pretty small
> amount of work, I'd be happy to submit a patch if anyone thinks it would be
> helpful.
>
> Best Regards,
> Eric Nicholson
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message