RE: [DotGNU]Is the C compiler a CLS extender?

[Mark Easton]

The fact you can get C compiled to IL is cool enough to keep me happy,
but the more I look at different languages that compile to IL, the more
I realise that the CLI is decidedly unfriendly to classless and typeless
languages

Cheers for the info.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Rhys Weatherley [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: 05 September 2003 00:42
To: Mark Easton; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Is the C compiler a CLS extender?

On Friday 05 September 2003 09:39 am, Mark Easton wrote:
> Just a very quick question, but I've been reading the CLI specs again
(I
> know, it'd be healthier to get a social life but those specs send me
> wobbly at the knees) and I'm wondering if the C compiler can actually
> create CLS compliant code or not?  I know it pumps out IL, but I'm
> guessing it can't do much with attributes which I assume means it
can't
> actually generate CLS compliant code.

Actually, it has more to do with types than attributes.  The C compiler 
outputs global methods and fields in the "<Module>" type, which are not 
normally going to be accessible to a strict CLS-compatible language.  C 
programs also make heavy use of unsigned types.

Of course, where it makes sense for the C compiler to be CLS-compatible,
then 
we will be; e.g. when calling C# code from C.  Unfortunately, Microsoft 
didn't define a CLS profile for languages that lack classes, like C
does.  
I'm certainly open to suggestions as to how to make C more CLS-friendly.

Cheers,

Rhys.