16 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
16 lines
1.3 KiB
Plaintext
=== on 8 Jul 2015, 15:17:03 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] note that the description I've written is for the "me" from last week. If it states too much of what is obvious to C# developers, please let me know what should be eliminated.
|
|
|
|
=== on 20 Jul 2015, 12:20:09 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] I think the description is okay. We could shorten it, but it's not necessary. ``++in++`` and ``++out++`` is not used too often, so it's not necessarily common knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've modified the description a bit. ``++IComparer++`` is not the most notable example for ``++in++`` generic arguments. We haven't discussed this, but this rule also applies for delegates with generic parameters. And the most notable example for ``++in++`` is the ``++Action++`` delegate: \https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/018hxwa8(v=vs.110).aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
A side note: the most notable example of having both ``++in++`` and ``++out++`` is probably the ``++Func<T, TResult>++`` delegate: \https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb549151(v=vs.110).aspx
|
|
|
|
=== on 20 Jul 2015, 14:09:21 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
Thanks [~tamas.vajk]. Note that I've just worked covariant/contravariant into the description in the appropriate places. I suddenly realized we described them but didn't actually attach the descriptions to the words!
|
|
|