Fred Silberberg
Fred Silberberg
Lol @CyrusNajmabadi I had already told alrz I'd champion this. It's mine! No fair waking up before me.
> In other words, the rules that flag those name conflicts are already there, we only need to relax those existing scoping rules. We still need the specese. > Pattern...
While we could implement something like that, I wouldn't really want to encourage it. The ARM version will be significantly better on ARM devices than the x64 version will be.
It does look like there are some test failures.
Done review pass (commit 2)
@dotnet/razor-compiler for a second review please.
Thanks @JamesNK!
1. The only one required is the constructor: we will fall back to it if any of the others are missing. As to why it was specified this way, I'm...
I would ask @gafter what he meant to write there.
We considered this as a part of C# 10, but rejected it as we didn't have a concrete scenario that could use the feature. Is there a scenario for this?