Replies: 4 comments 17 replies
-
|
I feel #6308 is an important complement to generic math feature. A lot of code can't be changed to generic math now. This may require runtime change though.
I implemented a prototype of |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As far as I can tell, the only mention you've ever made of this is one time in a github issue, and there has been no follow up with any member of the team since. As you know, we are on discord as well as on github, feel free to follow up with us on this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We'll have to wait for the next round of triage but there's a ton of features already in the Working Set milestone, hopefully at least some of them fits into this category (and possibly some will be pushed out to the backlog? - there's so many it's not clear what the actual status is on those features). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I feel like if working set items are going to degrade they should degrade to either the any time milestone or a new milestone entirely. The backlog and the working set signal two very different levels of interest from the LDT to me. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thinking about what it actually may look like, a lot of languages bucket features into a number of "stages" depending on the design progress. That may be a good idea to explore. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Is there some reason the pipe operator and switch on System.Type never get discussed for prioritization despite being among the top voted discussions in this repo? Maybe I'm being naïve but they seem to have a good effort / impact ratio. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
They're too busy adding pointless features like expression bodied members, badly thought out features like the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"Pointless" is subjective and everyone has a different opinion regarding which features should be added to the language and when, including within the language design group. What is pointless is denigrating the language team for not having opinions that align with your own. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sorry, I didn't realize the language team were above criticism 🙄 I very much get the impression that the language team live in their own little bubble where they mutually pat themselves on the back for coming up with a new "feature" (yay, top level statements). It's like their haunted by the slow evolution of C++ and therefore feel obliged to constantly churn out various half-baked features in case the language becomes irrelevant. You've only got to look at the comment on Bill Wagner's around the Plus I think you'll find it only denigrating if the criticism is unfair, which it isn't. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There are acceptable ways to provide constructive, critical feedback. Please note, your messages are not. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I am not on the language team. I do believe they invite criticism, but "pointless" and "badly thought out" are not constructive.
All of these conversations are happening out in the public here and on Discord/Gitter. I also disagree with numerous decisions that have been ultimately made by the team but when asked they generally always have a well thought out reason for the path that they've taken which does incorporate the feedback they've received through these and many other channels available to them. I think the team has been pretty open and receptive to community feedback, but that doesn't mean that design decisions are driven by those opinions in aggregate. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
To me, it is still surprising to see C# <-> F# navigation is still a miss in Visual Studio, while it works well in Jetbrains Rider. Is F# adjacent enough in this context for expecting this to evolve in Visual Studio? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As far as I can remember there was an attempt to build F# compiler on top of Roslyn but it seemed to be too too too much of effort as F# compiler was rewritten to F# much earlier than C# migrated from C++ to Roslyn There is https://github.com/fsprojects/Roslyn.FSharp but it seems to be dead? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yeah, this is actually already in progress dotnet/roslyn#62924 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That pr is not what you're looking for. That's generalized support code for reading and writing json streams. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My understanding from the description was that this is a LSP "framework" for other languages to implement, if not then I was wrong. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Interestingly, the F# to C# "Go To Definition" scenario already works. The infrastructure to make this work cross dotnet languages should ideally be something which is not tied to Roslyn nor F# or any language AST, but on resolved CLR representation of elements being pointed/referenced in the projects (based on assemblies with signatures only?), and passing it off the correct language service to resolve the precise location. I don't believe it is a requirement for C# project system to know about F# AST if it was made like this, and also that it would work with other languages that target CLR and implement the same resolution infrastructure. Once the navigation is fixed, it would be good for the refactoring use cases that are shared, to work across languages as well. This would help with any "C#-adjacent" CLR languages that would leverage this infrastructure, and I think, would be a good thing for Visual Studio. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/meetings/2022/LDM-2022-08-24.md
Agenda
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions