[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]Does cscc need a pedantic mode ?

From: Gopal V
Subject: [DotGNU]Does cscc need a pedantic mode ?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:42:43 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

Hi All,
        I've been pestered by marcusU every time I hit IRC with a
bug which does not affect cscc in any negative way ... IMHO it
even works the way I want to .. So here is the code

using i32=Int32; 

Should this throw an error saying "'Int32' not found" ?..

ECMA spec says that it should throw an error ... I'd like to
comply .. but that would mean throwing out a some  code I
wrote to support double aliasing (alias to an alias) , and
circularity checks ....

Maybe I went overboard with features ... But DotGNU always promised
to run what MS .NET does ... it never said "we will fail where MS .NET
fails" ..

Nov 26 13:35:28 <marcusU>       Just cause cscc compiles the example in 
                                the ECMA std that's supposed to illustrate an 
Nov 26 13:37:28 <t3rmin4t0r>    well marcusU, I'm more concerned in 
                                getting cscc to compile things .. rather than 
other way around
Nov 26 13:37:51 <t3rmin4t0r>    especially something that does not 
                                affect bytecode output (like using)
Nov 26 13:38:01 <t3rmin4t0r>    which is inherently difficult to debug
Nov 26 13:38:08 <marcusU>       I guess, but the invalid programs that a 
                                compiler rejects is just as important as the 
valid program 
                                a compiler accepts.
Nov 26 13:39:44 <marcusU>       Okay. But cscc isn't a C# compiler. It 
                                accepts some other language that looks like C# 
but isn't.

Ok ... having said all that .. do we need a 'pedantic' mode for complete
and total subservience to what MS CSC does ?

PS: I wrote it so that it works like a common macro #define in C ...
The difference between insanity and genius is measured by success

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]