CLS allows private portions of the code in classes to be non CLS compliant. How is this possible, because ultimately the code needs to be converted to the IL ?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
CLS allows private portions of the code in classes to be non CLS compliant. How is this possible, because ultimately the code needs to be converted to the IL ?
CLS stands for Common Language Specification. To simplify, it’s basically the minimal types and identifiers that all .NET languages must know about. For example,
Int32is CLS-compliant: any .NET language must be able to handle it.UInt32is not. Since your code is private, it won’t be accessed by other assemblies in other languages so it doesn’t matter if it is CLS-compliant or not.See this MSDN page for more information about CLS-compliance.
Edit: I think you misunderstand what CLS compliance is. It’s not about whether the code can be compiled into IL or not. UInt32 can be used in IL. So does an identifier named ‘©’. CLS-compliance is just a minimal contract for language interoperability. What the CLR supports is way broader than the limitations for CLS compliance.
Edit2: Yes, you’re right. A .NET language is required to support Int32, not UInt32, even if has a direct mapping to IL. See pointers, they’re supported in IL and in C# but are not CLS compliant. VB.NET doesn’t implement a support for them and still is CLS-compliant.