23 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
23 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
=== on 13 Apr 2015, 10:58:02 Freddy Mallet wrote:
|
|
@Tamas, does this rule make sense to you ? Thanks
|
|
|
|
=== on 13 Apr 2015, 11:55:24 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~freddy.mallet] I had to read up on this thing a bit: (\http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2005/11/14/why-are-base-class-calls-from-anonymous-delegates-nonverifiable.aspx) The issue makes sense. BUT I ran the peverify.exe on a sample, and it said that everything is verified, so I believe that this issue has already been solved by the .NET compiler team or by the team who writes peverify.exe. The original post was from 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I disassembled the generated assembly, and it is still generating additional classes with the same logic as before, so I believe the peverify.exe became more clever.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In another post \http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/11/07/the-future-of-c-part-five.aspx?PageIndex=1#comments, there is a single line of comment from Eric Lippert that says that they solved this problem.
|
|
|
|
=== on 20 Apr 2015, 15:28:01 Ann Campbell wrote:
|
|
\[~tamas.vajk] wouldn't this still be a valid rule for older code?
|
|
|
|
I.E., do we keep the RSpec & set it to inactive by default, or simply close it?
|
|
|
|
=== on 21 Apr 2015, 06:19:09 Tamas Vajk wrote:
|
|
\[~ann.campbell.2] It seems to me that the compiler generated code didn't change. It is still creating extra classes under the covers. So, I think that the peverify.exe became more clever. And this would mean that the rule is only valuable if an old version of the peverify.exe is used. So I would probably close it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|