C# 4 lang. features?

Oct 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Are we good to use C# 4 lang. features when developing NuPack features, such as optional parameters and default argument values?

Oct 7, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Mono 2.8 just came out yesterday. I would say yes. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Oct-06.html 
____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder

Oct 7, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Mono 2.8 just came out yesterday. I would say yes. 
____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder


On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:05 PM, anglicangeek <notifications@codeplex.com> wrote:

From: anglicangeek

Are we good to use C# 4 lang. features when developing NuPack features, such as optional parameters and default argument values?

Read the full discussion online.

To add a post to this discussion, reply to this email (nupack@discussions.codeplex.com)

To start a new discussion for this project, email nupack@discussions.codeplex.com

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this discussion on CodePlex. You can unsubscribe or change your settings on codePlex.com.

Please note: Images and attachments will be removed from emails. Any posts to this discussion will also be available online at codeplex.com


Oct 7, 2010 at 11:09 PM

Those features make it harder to be backward compatible with earlier versions (see Phil's post).  However, we're not setting a super high binary backward compat bar for NuPack, so my take is that it's fine to use those features.

Developer
Oct 7, 2010 at 11:52 PM

Not for NuPack.Core but for other API's I'm not opposed to it, but lets not abuse it.

Oct 8, 2010 at 1:35 PM

I think we should use whatever language feature is out there as long as it makes sense and has value-add. I am however totally against optional parameters. I think they're a feature that should have never been introduced and add complexity to a poorly designed way of doing something. To me it's a code smell. However if Mono supports dynamic operations then all the better. Might be useful to get some duck typing into NuPack. It is almost 2011 so why should we be coding to a 2005 standard?

Oct 8, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Although NuPack doesn't officially support VS 2008, I think it would be helpful to back port some of the features for use in that IDE. I know that VS 2008 doesn't support all the hooks, but I think the core features could be implemented. There are a LOT of developers that are still running the older version that would love to have access to NuPack.

I  was actually working on getting my Nu for Visual Studio extension to work in VS 2008. I can take a shot at do this for NuPack, but it would be very difficult if you started using C# 4 features. I would not recommend it unless there is no other way to accomplish something, and even then move it to an optional assembly.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Kiliman

Oct 8, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Agreed. Optional parameters have been in VB for a long time and they are considered a no no. They tend to hide things that should probably be explicit. Of course I haven't yet seen how they are implemented in c#, so I'm slightly talking out of my... :)

____
Rob
"Be passionate in all you do"

http://devlicio.us/blogs/rob_reynolds
http://ferventcoder.com
http://twitter.com/ferventcoder