Re: [DotGNU]implementing non ECMA features into pnetlib

[David Sugar]

I like the idea being able to create a reduced footprint embedded 
implementation of the libraries directly, rather than having to offer a 
seperate runtime library for this purpose.  We see this problem in 
traditional systems, where we have to have alternate libc's for embedded use 
because this consideration was not taken in at the time the original libc was 
created.  Certainly also, the libraries must provide a full range of 
functionality to support the dotgnu framework, with the core being fully spec 
compliant.  However, offering my own opinion, I am not sure I like the #ifdef 
ECMA_COMPAT, as that should, after all, be the default :).  Or maybe I 
misunderstood what you meant there...

On Friday 26 July 2002 05:13 am, Rhys Weatherley wrote:
> Gopal V wrote:
> > So should we have a System.IO.FileInfo class ?
>
> Since it is part of the .NET Framework, then yes.
>
> It was never my intention that pnetlib would stop after
> doing the ECMA classes.  There are already lots of .NET
> Framework classes in the code.  e.g. the Cryptography
> stuff I checked in a couple of weeks ago.
>
> ECMA-compatibility makes a good milestone to aim for,
> and the #if ECMA_COMPAT allows us to easily create a
> stripped-down library for embedded devices later.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rhys.
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.info/mailman/listinfo/developers