The Weird and The Wonderful

Thomas Weller wrote:

This specification exists because other .NET languages such as VB.NET have to explicitly write it down.

Redwan Al-Bougha wrote:

I think if a wrapper exist for each language between it's syntax and MSIL emitted code

Thomas Weller wrote:

They usually call it 'compiler'.

public class Item
{
    [System.Runtime.CompilerServices.IndexerName("TheItem")]
    public int this[int y]
    {
        get
        {
            return 0;
        }
    }
}

Rob Graham wrote:

this is just a name that is auto generated by the compiler as a convenience

Redwan Al-Bougha wrote:

A default indexer is given the name 'Item' in the emitted code, creating the conflict.

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

Why not? If I'm writing a Fibonacci method why shouldn't I put it in a class named Fibonacci?

WilliamSauron wrote:

method that has the same name as the class itself is called a "constructor"...

WilliamSauron wrote:

Yes, I actually hoped it was so

System.DivideByZeroException: Attempted to divide by zero.
   at Template.Template..ctor(Int32 x)

WilliamSauron wrote:

The ".ctor" is not a C# name, it is a CLR/MSIL/whatever name

WilliamSauron wrote:

I know that if a method is declared that has the same name as the class, it is a constructor.

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

Which is the only name that matters

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

That's funny, I know that if a method is declared that has no name and returns an instance of the class, it is a constructor.

The identifier of a constructor-declarator must name the class in which the instance constructor is declared. If any other name is specified, a compile-time error occurs.

WilliamSauron wrote:

Unless you target another architecture than the CLR, of course

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

True, but it would still likely generate the same name, for convenience

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

My copies of the MS and ECMA specs say the same thing... it's an identifier, not a name.

WilliamSauron wrote:

Visual Studio editor had the same black color

WilliamSauron wrote:

This brings the second question: as the compiler internally creates a method named "Item" as the implementation of the default indexer, does it really impose an unbearable burden on the creativity of programmers?

WilliamSauron wrote:

"Item" is therefore not a good name for that class.

WilliamSauron wrote:

but please don't say the compiler is restricting your creativity

WilliamSauron wrote:

On the other hand, now we know where the coding horror is

public class Item
{
  [IndexerName("IRDUM")]
  public int this[int y]
  {
    get
    {
      return 0;
    }
  }
}