You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@lucenenet.apache.org by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com> on 2011/05/07 07:19:45 UTC
[Lucene.Net] var
Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
A good blog about this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2011/04/20/uses-and-misuses-of-i
mplicit-typing.aspx
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Prescott Nasser [mailto:geobmx540@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2011 8:20 AM
To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: [Lucene.Net] var
Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
=
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
I recall us discussing this a bit, but I don't recall the outcome (couldn't find it in the mailing list archives either).
Can anyone else find that thread?
If not, what are people's feelings on this? I think at a certain point we can say we don't need .NET 2.0 going forward, but what point do we want to make that? We have the main trunk that people are testing, some feedback is good. And then the 2_9_4g branch that Digy started (and I semi-hijacked sorry!)
----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 01:55:40 -0400
> From: mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> 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 wrote:
>
> >
> > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
> >
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
Yes, sorry -- I didn't mean to conflate the two issues.
'var' is just syntactic sugar. I'm more concerned with the framework support
issue, which is not directly related to the use of var, but is tied in with
the discussion.
Thanks,
Troy
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Digy <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 <di...@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?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
> 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 <di...@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?
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
* but the bug existed in older *
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Michael Herndon <mherndon@wickedsoftware.net
> wrote:
> The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
> critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
> platform to a newer major version.
>
> An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of lucene.netthat are compile on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was exist in order versions.
>
> They would want the patch back-ported in a version that supported .Net 2.0
> because of the perceived cost in upgrading the rest of the software to a
> newer version of .net.
>
> I'm all for pushing people forward (I tend to use var and mixins myself).
>
> But it might be wise to think on a strategy that allows room for back
> porting any critical updates and supporting those till date/year x (though
> no longer than 2 years at most) to give people breathing room and avoiding
> panic.
>
> - Michael
>
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <di...@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?
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
The government tends to work in this fashion of wanting security and
critical bug updates, but are generally unwilling to upgrade underlying
platform to a newer major version.
An example: security vulnerability patched in later versions of
lucene.netthat are compile on .NET 3.5+ but the bug was exist in order
versions.
They would want the patch back-ported in a version that supported .Net 2.0
because of the perceived cost in upgrading the rest of the software to a
newer version of .net.
I'm all for pushing people forward (I tend to use var and mixins myself).
But it might be wise to think on a strategy that allows room for back
porting any critical updates and supporting those till date/year x (though
no longer than 2 years at most) to give people breathing room and avoiding
panic.
- Michael
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <di...@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?
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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 <di...@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?
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
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 <di...@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?
> > > >
> >
>
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
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?
> > >
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Wyatt Barnett <wy...@gmail.com>.
I fully agree on moving past 2.0 for development and using MSBuild 4.0.
I think maintaing 2.0/3.5 binary support is worth the effort, at least
for the 2.x branch or at least worth keeping in mind. Lots of stuff
hasn't bitten the 4.0 bullet yet whereas 2.0 and I think 3.5 are
included in windows.
Now, for 3.0 which is a different beast I think 4.0 and up is an easier sale.
On May 7, 2011, at 5:07 AM, Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>>>>
>>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Troy Howard <th...@gmail.com>.
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?
> > >
>
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>.
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 <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
> >
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Prescott Nasser <ge...@hotmail.com>.
~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 <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >
> > Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
> >
RE: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Aaron Powell <me...@aaron-powell.com>.
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 <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
>
Re: [Lucene.Net] var
Posted by Michael Herndon <mh...@wickedsoftware.net>.
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 <ge...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Where do we stand on use of the var keyword?
>