lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Herndon <mhern...@wickedsoftware.net>
Subject Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Date Mon, 09 May 2011 17:58:16 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message