lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 20:18:08 GMT
> I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the general consensus
is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking.
Maybe, I am missing something but "var" is just a syntactic sugar and changes nothing in IL
level. So, I don't see a case to vote.
If you think the code will be easier to read, use it. If not, don't.

DIGY

-----Original Message-----
From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:54 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var

I'll start a more official vote thread to finalize our stance. I think the
general consensus is "yes to var", but that might just be my bias talking.

Re: Government projects and new tech.. There is nothing stopping
conservative organizations from using our previous releases. Building from
source or using the bleeding edge is not a smart tactic for anyone who cares
about stability, government or otherwise.

-T


On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Herndon <
mherndon@wickedsoftware.net> wrote:

> Let me know once this is a concrete answer. It needs to go on the wiki and
> tweeted and even blogged about.
>
> There will most likely be some push back, especially if anyone is using
> Lucene.Net inside of government projects.  They always take forever in
> letting you develop with the latest stable technologies.
>
> - Michael
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Digy <digydigy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The new C# features are committed only to 2.9.4g branch. 2.9.4 can still
> be
> > built targeting .NET 2.0.
> > We can continue to support both version in parallel (in terms of bug
> fixes
> > such as LUCENENET-172 & LUCENENET-413, maybe LUCENENET-266) and declare
> that
> > 2.9.4 will be the last version supporting 2.0 framework.
> >
> > DIGY
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thoward37@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 12:06 PM
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
> >
> > Using var is wonderful and great. We'll hopefully do doing a lot of
> > refactoring in the near future. var makes refactoring easier.
> >
> > I think we've committed fairly strongly to moving past 2.0 support. AFAIK
> > the current trunk won't build under 2.0 anyhow (or am I mistaken, DIGY
> used
> > HashSet<T> in a recent patch, which is 3.5 or higher, and all the
> solutions
> > I committed in the recent directory updates were VS2010, and all the
> csproj
> > files updated to target 4.0). So, I don't see any reason to maintain 2.0
> > compatibility... The 4.0 runtime offers so many benefits over previous
> > versions that, IMO, everyone who writes .NET apps should be working hard
> to
> > migrate forward to 4.0 if they aren't already there.
> >
> > We can help the community along by giving them one more good reason to
> > switch to a better runtime.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Troy
> >
> >
> > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 12:41 AM, Aaron Powell <me@aaron-powell.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it's a C# 3 feature, but the C# 3 compiler (shipped in VS 2008) can
> > > compile C# 2.0 and C# 3.0 assemblies.
> > > Quick test: http://www.aaron-powell.com/get/var-csharp-2.PNG
> > >
> > > I don't have VS 2008 though, this test was done with VS 2010 using the
> > > multitargetting features
> > >
> > > Aaron Powell
> > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team
> > > Member | FunnelWeb Team Member
> > >
> > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell |
> > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 5:32 PM
> > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ~Prescott Nasser
> > > prescott.nasser@hotmail.com
> > > 650.208.4205
> > >
> > > It's a 3.0 keyword, can't be used pre C# 3.0
> > >
> > >
> > > > From: me@aaron-powell.com
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 07:28:36 +0000
> > > > Subject: RE: [Lucene.Net] var
> > > >
> > > > My understanding of the 'var' keyword is just C# syntactic sugar,
> which
> > > the compiler will translate into the actual CLR type for variable
> > > assignment, so the compiler is capable of compiling CLR 2.0 assemblies
> > > anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Aaron Powell
> > > > MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | Umbraco Core Team Member |
> > > FunnelWeb Team Member
> > > >
> > > > http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell
> |
> > > MSN: aazzap@hotmail.com
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michael Herndon [mailto:mherndon@wickedsoftware.net]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 7 May 2011 3:56 PM
> > > > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [Lucene.Net] var
> > > >
> > > > I think that is going to depend on if we are continuing .net 2.0 / C#
> > 2.0
> > > support or dropping it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Prescott Nasser <
> geobmx540@hotmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>


Mime
View raw message