[pokiaka]

I've seen an answer in StackOverflow.com saying something different:

Quote

C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other lanaguages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"

I can't find any reason not to have that feature, especially because of the reasons in my previous reply.

[Skydiver]

Also, you keep on talking about PInvoke. Have you considered having a mixed mode assembly that exposes a managed external interface but whose internal are mostly native?
http://msdn.microsof...y/x0w2664k.aspx

I've been using SQLite's mixed mode assembly and I don't feel like I'm taking a 5 second hit for any of the operations I'm doing from within my C# WinForms application.

[pokiaka]

Skydiver, on 06 September 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Also, you keep on talking about PInvoke. Have you considered having a mixed mode assembly that exposes a managed external interface but whose internal are mostly native?
http://msdn.microsof...y/x0w2664k.aspx

I've been using SQLite's mixed mode assembly and I don't feel like I'm taking a 5 second hit for any of the operations I'm doing from within my C# WinForms application.

Didn't know about this.
The article doesn't tell how you call it from C#. you still have to re-declare everything?

[Skydiver]

pokiaka, on 06 September 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

I've seen an answer in StackOverflow.com saying something different:

Quote

C# and the .net CLR have not implemented MI because they have not concluded how it would inter-operate between C#, VB.net and the other lanaguages yet, not because "it would make source more complex"

I can't find any reason not to have that feature, especially because of the reasons in my previous reply.

See the link to Chris Brumme's response that is in one of the comments. In particular point #3. http://blogs.msdn.co...nheritance.aspx

[pokiaka]

It's a good point but nevertheless, that's the way around repeatable code, no?