Ignacio Roldán Etcheverry
Ignacio Roldán Etcheverry
While the solution we're going to go with is a different one, currently it still relies on some workarounds this PR implements (copying and extracting the assemblies). So if you...
Since we're not yet in feature freeze for 4.2, I'm merging this now so more people can start testing, and since I need it for my PR as well.
Regarding C#: No work has started yet for porting to mobile, so I can't say what will be needed. If we can't find a better solution, we would have to...
Is that PR truly the reason those namespaces are no longer needed? My guess is that it would be because of #69088.
My problem with this one is the need for extra allocations, one for each derived type. I understand it's needed for inheritance in order for `Emit` to include the base...
Syntax-wise I think this can be achieved with structs + default interface implementations. That would avoid the allocations. Unfortunately, I think accessing the `bound` field from the default interface implementation...
> Can't we use inherited record types or would that also be bad because of inheritence stuff. Internally, records are just classes, so they also allocate. `record struct` has the...
That's very good if it indeed works, and I wouldn't consider it hacky in my book. The downside is that extension classes can't be nested, so they pollute the namespace.
> I would just have one partial static class containing all emit extensions. And i can confirm it works. Indeed, although it would have to be in the global namespace....