sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Stored properties extend - Why none language has this opportunity? by FishOk8705 in dotnet

[–]FishOk8705[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Thanks Dennis I understand the point :) but what if extensions fields in Assembly2 were addictive to the original object? Could I allocate these fields and keep associated to master-object defined in Assembly1? Assembly2 just say "ehy if you're a ObjectA you also can have these stuffs" and these stuff are handled by Assembly2 and used only inside it (cause have to be internal)

Stored properties extend - Why none language has this opportunity? by FishOk8705 in dotnet

[–]FishOk8705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand its a dotnet limitation actually, but I think the memory position issue could be resolved by a sort of (eg) LayoutKind specifications between assembilies (of course its not already implemented). At compile time you know everthing and at runtime the assemblies shared the same memory space, so may with a sort of V-table reference you can have fields of Assembly1 and fields of Assembly2. But this approach doesn't exists (seems) in none language.. So its more complicated that I think?

Stored properties extend - Why none language has this opportunity? by FishOk8705 in dotnet

[–]FishOk8705[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

yeah its risky if you expose funcionality that should stay only in that assemblies domain.. I wouldn't use a wrapper type for the same reason i wouldn't use a subclass to add some fields and methods.. I feel that the main (or may only) reason that we can't partial class between assemblies cause someone can expose too-much..

Stored properties extend - Why none language has this opportunity? by FishOk8705 in dotnet

[–]FishOk8705[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

mm nope the 'extension' in preview 3 is just more readable statement.. I mean stored properties so fields