C# Compiler

As I make slow progress on Anonymous Methods on the C# compiler -due to some very embarassing assumption on my part- but most issues have been solved now. Am now implementing parameter capturing and must finish the field access reference from an anonymous method, fix a couple of regressions with iterators and commit quickly to CVS. Martin Baulig has been going through the C# generics spec item by item double-checking that his compiler has everything that we are supposed to have (Generic tests today amount to 20% of our positive tests, and 10% of our negative tests). He has finished with the generics spec as far as the ECMA working draft is concerned, but its lacking some of the latest additions that were freshly submitted in January.

Martin also worked on the new alias features in C# 2.0 and some of that code is already on the CVS tree.

Reflection.Emit is sadly not complete enough to build our generics C# compiler (even with the recently released .NET Framework 2.0 preview) so we had to resort to more hidden methods in our Reflection.Emit API which are only available to our compiler. We hope to post the list of our API needs in case Microsoft is interested in exposing these kind of changes in their implementation.

At the PDC in one of the compiler BOFs, Brad Abrams asked if people had written a compiler that followed the Common Language Specification (CLS) rules and very few people actually said they had. Although we had a C# compiler, we had not implemented the CLS rules for it.

Marek Safar recently contributed the CLS support for our C# compiler. The initial patch is about two months old, we went through various code reviews before the code could land on CVS: the traidional review for maintanability, style and performance was done before we could take his patch. Marek did a fantastic job addressing every concern that Martin and myself had. It turned out that the CLS tests have a minimal impact on compilation time.

Partial Classes is another feature that more and more people are asking about. On the surface you would think its trivial to implement it. And in fact most of it is trivial to implement, except that there is a tiny little clause in the spec that states that type lookup must be performed using the current list of using declarations. The problem is that the list of using declarations might be different from file to file, so in two different pieces of a partial class "MyType" might have a different meaning.

Partial classes are debatable an ugly hack, but at least this rules make sense in terms of doing what the programmer expects.

Implementation wise, it means that we need to do a lot of code shuffling to implement it, and it is not something that we are likely going to have by Mono 1.0.

Posted on 04 Apr 2004 by Miguel de Icaza
This is a personal web page. Things said here do not represent the position of my employer.