*** New C# Language V2.0 Specification Now Available ***

[Eric Gunnerson [MS]]

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum
for the C# language on that same page.
If you don't own a copy of MS Word, you can download the free viewer at:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=EN
--
Eric Gunnerson

Visit the C# product team at http://www.csharp.net
Eric's blog is at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ericgu/

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Eric Gunnerson [MS] <er****@online. microsoft.com> wrote:

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum
for the C# language on that same page.

<snip>

Any word on when the other new features in C# are likely to be released
in a specification (draft or otherwise)? I'm looking forward to seeing
exactly how properties with different access modifiers for the accessor
and mutator are specified. (That and whether or not a property will be
able to define its own variables which aren't accessible outside the
property itself.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jesse]

Is that the new spec or is it the new "draft" spec.........hm mmm

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Eric Gunnerson [MS] <er****@online. microsoft.com> wrote:

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum for the C# language on that same page.

<snip>

Any word on when the other new features in C# are likely to be released
in a specification (draft or otherwise)? I'm looking forward to seeing
exactly how properties with different access modifiers for the accessor
and mutator are specified. (That and whether or not a property will be
able to define its own variables which aren't accessible outside the
property itself.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Willy Denoyette [MVP]]

It's a draft . See the page's C# 2.0 Specification paragraph.

Willy.
"Jesse" <th***********@ urnuts.com> wrote in message news:uS******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP11.phx.gbl...

Is that the new spec or is it the new "draft" spec.........hm mmm

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MP******** *************** *@msnews.micros oft.com...

Eric Gunnerson [MS] <er****@online. microsoft.com> wrote:

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum for the C# language on that same page.

<snip>

Any word on when the other new features in C# are likely to be released
in a specification (draft or otherwise)? I'm looking forward to seeing
exactly how properties with different access modifiers for the accessor
and mutator are specified. (That and whether or not a property will be
able to define its own variables which aren't accessible outside the
property itself.)

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Mike Schilling]

"Eric Gunnerson [MS]" <er****@online. microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uh******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum
for the C# language on that same page.

I now have three C# language specs:

C# Language Specification (from Microsoft), dated 2001
ECMA-334, dated 2002
C# Language Specification v1.2, dated 2003

Where can I find descriptions of how they differ?

[codymanix]

I don't like the verbose syntax "yield return" and "yield break". Why not
simply "yield" and "return"?

If someboy sees "return" he expects the end of the method. Why not
preserving this?

Yield is only reserved within iterator methods so there should really be no
problem with code breaking. Even if someboy was so stupid to use "yield" as
identifier - this is quickly corrected, as yield is not reserved as class,
method, property-name, only locals would be affected and ONLY within
iterator methods! Already built assemblies are not affected.

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk

[news.microsoft.com]

Partials are just stupid, and anonymous methods, argue all you want about
spaghetti code, its still spaghetti code.

The only real gain from 2.0 is generics

Still doesnt fix all the gaps in libraries, how much time is wasted wrapping
things that should have been wrapped. how much of a typical project has to
end up going to native calls. Time wasted in my view.
"codymanix" <do************ *********@gmx.d e> wrote in message
news:OL******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

I don't like the verbose syntax "yield return" and "yield break". Why not
simply "yield" and "return"?

If someboy sees "return" he expects the end of the method. Why not
preserving this?

Yield is only reserved within iterator methods so there should really be no problem with code breaking. Even if someboy was so stupid to use "yield" as identifier - this is quickly corrected, as yield is not reserved as class,
method, property-name, only locals would be affected and ONLY within
iterator methods! Already built assemblies are not affected.

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk

[cody]

> Partials are just stupid

I have a bad feeling about them too but look into reality programming. Often
Forms-classes can get really huge and now imagine you are working in a team
and more than 1 programmer wants to work on that class. Additionally
automatically generated code can be separated from written code. Maybe they
aren't as bad when you once get used to them-

, and anonymous methods, argue all you want about
spaghetti code, its still spaghetti code.
It depends. Imagine you have 30 controls in one form and have to add a
eventhandler to each of them where the handling code is just a few lines
each time. Do you want to write 30 methods and make sure that each method
belongs to excact one handler and you don't left one out or want to define
the eventhandling methods where they are used?
The only real gain from 2.0 is generics
Indeed! No more stupid unneccessary casting!
Still doesnt fix all the gaps in libraries, how much time is wasted wrapping things that should have been wrapped. how much of a typical project has to end up going to native calls. Time wasted in my view.
..Net isn't a wrapper to the Windows API or to COM objects. It is a
independent platform (although it runs only on windows-how funny :) )
When you want to use functionality which is not part of .Net you have to use
Interop and build your own wrappers.

In my experience native calls are very rarely used. On which kind of
projects do you work where you need to many native stuff?
"codymanix" <do************ *********@gmx.d e> wrote in message
news:OL******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

I don't like the verbose syntax "yield return" and "yield break". Why not simply "yield" and "return"?

If someboy sees "return" he expects the end of the method. Why not
preserving this?

Yield is only reserved within iterator methods so there should really be

no

problem with code breaking. Even if someboy was so stupid to use "yield"

as

identifier - this is quickly corrected, as yield is not reserved as class, method, property-name, only locals would be affected and ONLY within
iterator methods! Already built assemblies are not affected.

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk

[Eric Gunnerson [MS]]

The first two should be identical, though the ECMA one has different
numbering.
The third one has some clarifications and updates, and a new introduction.

--
Eric Gunnerson

Visit the C# product team at http://www.csharp.net
Eric's blog is at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ericgu/

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Mike Schilling" <ms************ *@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eq******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...

"Eric Gunnerson [MS]" <er****@online. microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uh******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

You may download the new specification at the C# Developer Center
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp/language). There is a discussion forum for the C# language on that same page.

I now have three C# language specs:

C# Language Specification (from Microsoft), dated 2001
ECMA-334, dated 2002
C# Language Specification v1.2, dated 2003

Where can I find descriptions of how they differ?

[Eric Gunnerson [MS]]

We had originally used "yield" by itself, but unfortunately, that would
require us to add a new keyword to the language, which has the potential to
break current code. By using "yield return", we don't have to do this.

--
Eric Gunnerson

Visit the C# product team at http://www.csharp.net
Eric's blog is at http://blogs.gotdotnet.com/ericgu/

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"codymanix" <do************ *********@gmx.d e> wrote in message
news:OL******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

I don't like the verbose syntax "yield return" and "yield break". Why not
simply "yield" and "return"?

If someboy sees "return" he expects the end of the method. Why not
preserving this?

Yield is only reserved within iterator methods so there should really be no problem with code breaking. Even if someboy was so stupid to use "yield" as identifier - this is quickly corrected, as yield is not reserved as class,
method, property-name, only locals would be affected and ONLY within
iterator methods! Already built assemblies are not affected.

--
cody

[Freeware, Games and Humor]
www.deutronium.de.vu || www.deutronium.tk