Group items tagged

This is a project to build reliable .NET bindings for the Subversion version-control system libraries. This is a continuation of the SubversionSharp library initially created by Softec and released under the LGPL.

TextWriterTraceListener

Everyone will benefit, even the Java community: Now that there's competition again, new constructs are—surprise!—again being considered for Java

Do languages have to sacrifice anything?

.NET goes much further: A routine written in a language L1 may call another routine written in a different language L2. A module in L1 may declare a variable whose type is a class declared in L2, and then call the corresponding L2 routines on that variable. If both languages are object oriented, a class in L1 can inherit from a class in L2. Exceptions triggered by a routine written in L1 and not handled on the L1 side will be passed to the caller, which—if written in L2—will process it using L2's own exception-handling mechanism. During a debugging session, you may move freely and seamlessly across modules written in L1 and L2. I don't know about you, but I've never seen anything coming even close to this level of interoperability.

Once you have a key you need to add its public part to your add-on's install.rdf file. The simplest way to do this is to select the key then click the Install toolbar button. You must then locate your install.rdf for McCoy and the public part of the key will be added directly to the file. The file will be overwritten so take a backup if you need to.

You need to use McCoy to sign this file so that the application can verify that it really came from you. Simply select the key you originally added to the add-on's install.rdf, then click the "Sign" toolbar button, select your update.rdf file and the data in it will be signed. It's important to note that if you change any information in the update file then it must be signed again.

I know where you live anti-pattern

Liskov Substitution Principle

the easier it is to test a class, the more likely a developer will test it.

easiest

Almost every article I see that describes the difference between value types and reference types explains in (frequently incorrect) detail about what “the stack” is and how the major difference between value types and reference types is that value types go on the stack.

I find this characterization of a value type based on its implementation details rather than its observable characteristics to be both confusing and unfortunate. Surely the most relevant fact about value types is not the implementation detail of how they are allocated, but rather the by-design semantic meaning of “value type”, namely that they are always copied “by value”.

Of course, the simplistic statement I described is not even true. As the MSDN documentation correctly notes, value types are allocated on the stack sometimes. For example, the memory for an integer field in a class type is part of the class instance’s memory, which is allocated on the heap.