[Ironruby-core] Calling a C# static from IronRuby

Ivan Porto Carrero ivan at flanders.co.nz
Thu Nov 19 03:26:16 EST 2009


FWIW  I read too quickly before I sent the mail previous to this one. Orion
put me straight, I have no objections to this and will put it in the interop
features box.
---
Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations
Ivan Porto Carrero
Blog: http://flanders.co.nz
Google Wave: portocarrero.ivan at googlewave.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/casualjim
Author of IronRuby in Action (http://manning.com/carrero)



On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:50 PM, Orion Edwards <orion.edwards at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Jimmy Schementi <
> Jimmy.Schementi at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI, we’re thinking about allowing you to use “include” with .NET types,
>> which will include it’s static methods. That would enable:
>>
>>
> I'd be very much in favour of this. A .NET static class full of static
> methods always seemed like it would be a good map to a ruby Module to me.
>
> Whether you want to limit the 'include' functionality to only work with
> static classes, or just work for static methods on any old class I think is
> up for debate.
> I'd go for 'any old class', but I generally fall on the 'be as permissive
> as possible' side of the fence, so others may not agree :-)
>
>
> On 14/11/2009, at 9:29 AM, Ivan Porto Carrero wrote:
>
> I think Ruby on .NET is great and stuff like the clr_new, overloads etc are
> a necessary evil to ease working with CLR classes.
> But I do think that changing a basic construct like include will not be
> good unless the other rubies also include it. The reason for it is you only
> use clr_new (which is aptly prefixed btw) or overload etc when you're
> working with the CLR but include you use in other implementations too and
> then it won't behave consistently across the board.
>
>
> While consistency with other Ruby implementations is obviously important,
> this is a CLR interop feature and shouldn't affect the normal ruby behavior
> of include, so I don't see how it affects consistency with other
> implementations at all?. It seems similar to being able to use include on
> .NET namespaces from IronRuby, which is of course also non-standard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20091119/7bffbed6/attachment.html>


More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list