Lee,
Although the VB specification states they are not CLS compliant, the CLS
specification seems to state that sometimes they are CLS compliant (as
suggested by the passages I quoted earlier).
| > | According to The Common Language Infrastructure Annotated Standard:
| > | <quote>NOTE: So-called "jagged arrays" are CLS-compliant,
Which is under CLS Rule 16.
I would value the CLI specification over the VB specification...
Hope this helps
Jay
| Hi All,
|
| Actually, funny you mentioned the 2.0 Framework. The only reason I even
| considered not using a jagged array was based on info I read in VS.NET
2005
| docs. I've actually converted a copy of my project to run under 2.0,
mostly
| to get a feel for the 2005 IDE, but also to see what I might be up against
| when clients wanted to go to the 2.0 framework.
|
| To see just how easy it is to work in 2005, this is where I initially
turned
| Options Strict On, as all of the errors produced come with nice little
| recommended fixes. when I got to the late binding issue regarding HIndex,
I
| started looking at Array of Arrays (just as Herfield and Jay said, using
| HIndex()(), rather than HIndex() ). From the 2005 docs:
|
| Jagged arrays are not compliant with the Common Language Specification
| (CLS). This means you should not expose jagged arrays from any class you
| want CLS-compliant code to consume.
|
| Without really reading the second sentence, I decided I really didn't want
| to introduce a potential problem into my app. However, I agree with Jay.
| This is a private implementation, so the jagged array stays and it fixes
the
| late binding, so, that, as they say, is that!
|
| thanks guys!!
| Lee
|
|
| | > Hmm...
| > | Which I read to mean that the jagged array "Integer()()" is
implemented
| > as
| > | an "System.Array of System.Array Of Integer", of course if you look at
| > the
| > | IL shows this is how they are implemented!
| > Reading that just now, it doesn't make as much sense as I thought it did
| > when I wrote it. :-(
| >
| > Reading the annotation accompanying Rule 16 in the Common Language
| > Infrastructure Annotated Standard it appears I was partially correct.
What
| > I'm not certain about is if you do not overload a method on Jagged
arrays
| > if
| > the method is CLS compliant or not. It definitely appears if you
overload
| > a
| > method based on Jagged Arrays they are definitely not CLS compliant.
| >
| > For example:
| >
| > Public Compliant
| >
| > Public Sub Sum(ByVal values As Integer()())
| > End Sub
| >
| > End Class
| >
| > Public Class NoneCompliant
| >
| > Public Sub Sum(ByVal values As Integer()())
| > End Sub
| >
| > Public Sub Sum(ByVal values As Single()())
| > End Sub
| >
| > End Class
| >
| > The way I am understanding the standard, the NoneCompliant class is not
| > compliant as both methods are treated as "Sum(ByVal values As
| > System.Array())", while the Compliant class may be compliant as there is
| > only a single method (its not overloaded)...
| >
| > I'll have to see if I can find more info on this. Also I would be
curious
| > if
| > .NET 2.0 has clarified this any...
| >
| > Either way, as was suggested, if the jagged array is a private
| > implementation detail of the type or method (its not Publicly exposed)
| > then
| > the entire discussion of it being compliant or not, although
interesting,
| > is
| > largely academic.
| >
| > Hope this helps
| > Jay
| >
| >
| >
message
| > | > | lgbjr,
| > || But, As I posted earlier, I want to stay away from the jagged array,
as
| > | it's
| > || not CLS compliant.
| > | Where do you get that impression???
| > |
| > | According to The Common Language Infrastructure Annotated Standard:
| > | <quote>NOTE: So-called "jagged arrays" are CLS-compliant, but when
| > | overloading multiple array types they are one-dimensional, zero-based
| > arrays
| > | of type System.Array.</quote>
| > |
| > | Which I read to mean that the jagged array "Integer()()" is
implemented
| > as
| > | an "System.Array of System.Array Of Integer", of course if you look at
| > the
| > | IL shows this is how they are implemented! Its just that C# & VB.NET
| > offers
| > | syntactical sugar to simplify it to Integer()() or int[][]. As you
found
| > | putting an array, any array into a System.Array variable requires late
| > | binding, if you put the array into a strongly typed variable, such as
| > | Integer()(), then you avoid the late binding. Also using strongly
typed
| > | variables may enable the compiler to use array specific IL
instructions
| > | instead of the methods on System.Array...
| > |
| > | Hope this helps
| > | Jay
| > |
| > |
| > | | > || Hi All,
| > ||
| > || Cor, you are correct, the issue was really related to late binding,
| > though
| > | I
| > || understand why Jay and Herfield hit on the jagged array.
| > ||
| > || But, As I posted earlier, I want to stay away from the jagged array,
as
| > | it's
| > || not CLS compliant.
| > ||
| > || I had to move onto something else temporarily, but I'll post back
| > tomorrow
| > || with any questions regarding Cor's possible solution!
| > ||
| > || Thanks
| > ||
| > || Lee
| > ||
| > || | > || > Jay,
| > || >
| > || > The question is in my opinion a late binding question (see the
| > subject)
| > || > not an array question.
| > || >
| > || > When you say like Herfried that, using a jagged array is always the
| > best
| > || > solution to overcome late bindings problems, than I have nothing
more
| > to
| > || > discus.
| > || >
| > || >> The best solution is to create a jagged array (an array of
arrays):
| > || >
| > || > That maybe the jagged array is the best solution for this problem,
| > can
| > | be.
| > || > However, does not for me answer his more implicit question how to
| > | overcome
| > || > late binding in general. I nowhere saw that in yours and either in
| > || > Herfrieds text.
| > || >
| > || > When it is possible, than I think that it is *better* to learn how
to
| > | fish
| > || > than to give a fish.
| > || >
| > || > I hope this helps
| > || >
| > || > Cor
| > || >
| > ||
| > ||
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
