Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
- From: "Ray Cassick \(Home\)" <rcassickNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:36:28 -0500
Aren't 'standards' grand :)
Sorry, but I have spent the day wrestling with the standard 'SIP' protocol
and how it is interpreted by various people :)
"Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]" <Jay_Harlow_MVP@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:e4RNsDc9FHA.3544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Kevin,
> | I didn't say it was... What I was trying to point out is that the VB
> | behaviour is specifically excluded by the C# spec; The C# team couldn't
> | introduce it without a breaking change...
>
> I hope you agree with my point all along that the behaviour is no
> specifically included by the C# spec either.
>
> | Not much room for ambiguity there! Even if the tag is semantically
> wrong,
> C#
> | must pass it :-)
>
> Obviously we will need to agree to disagree.
>
> --
> Hope this helps
> Jay [MVP - Outlook]
> .NET Application Architect, Enthusiast, & Evangelist
> T.S. Bradley - http://www.tsbradley.net
>
>
> "Kevin Downs" <msnewsATNOSPAMkdownsDOTcom> wrote in message
> news:uEYCkgY9FHA.636@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | >> I would agree that the VB behaviour is probably more logical, but
> this
> | >> does not mean that C# is wrong...
> | > I didn't say one is right & one is wrong, I stated one seems
> "correct"'
> | > and one seems "incorrect", (NOTE the quotes & the word seems). In
> other
> | > words its subjective! Is the glass half empty or half full?
> |
> | I agree whole-heartedly.
> |
> | >
> | >> According to the 'official' source (Ecma C# 2.0 spec, Annex E), Also
> the
> | >> specification states "The documentation generator must accept and
> | > Ah! There's the rub!
> | >
> | > We are quoting the C# spec in reference to VB!
> | >
> | > Repeat after me: VB is *NOT* C#. ;-)
> |
> | I didn't say it was... What I was trying to point out is that the VB
> | behaviour is specifically excluded by the C# spec; The C# team couldn't
> | introduce it without a breaking change...
> |
> | I would note however that although VB is not C#, it is copying an
> already
> | established mechanism for the xml docs, so consistancy may have been
> | desirable :-)
> |
> | > NOTE: The official VB spec is ambiguous also:
> | >
> | >
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=6D50D709-EAA4-44D7-8AF3-E14280403E6E&displaylang=en
> | >
> | > I hope you realize I was pointing out that the VB & C# documentation
> are
> | > both ambiguous about the matter. This ambiguity obviously does not
> prove
> | > or disprove the matter either way.
> |
> | I wouldn't say the C# spec is ambiguous
> | "The documentation generator must accept and process any tag that is
> valid
> | according to the rules of XML."
> |
> | Not much room for ambiguity there! Even if the tag is semantically
> wrong,
> C#
> | must pass it :-)
> |
> |
> | As I see it, the problem with the VB implementation is that, when a
> | "suspect" documentation tag is found, it ignores the *entire* comment
> block.
> | So if you do anything VB considers wrong, you get no documentation
> | whatsoever !
> |
> | IMHO, a compiler warning for the problem tag, and ignoring that specific
> tag
> | only, would have been sufficient...
> |
> |
> |
> | Kevin
> |
> |
>
>
.
- References:
- Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
- From: Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]
- Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
- Prev by Date: Is VB 2005 Express IDE Full Of Bugs?
- Next by Date: Re: Dataset - How to get data from a child table?
- Previous by thread: Re: BUG in VB.NET XML comment engine?
- Next by thread: Zipping a file programmatically in vs2005
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
