http://ayende.comAyende @ RahienCopyright (C) Ayende Rahien 2004 - 2021 (c) 202660Ah, I see your point. I guess it's more than just syntactic sugar then. Maybe it could just be an improvement to the compiler, to "inline" singular GetXXX() calls into the resulting metadata token? http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment7http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment7Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:45:41 GMTNate, the problem of memberof() vs. GetMethod() is the relative cost of doing them. memberof is just load token, GetMethod is a much more expensive scenario. http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment6http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment6Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:41:16 GMTAdding macros to C# is scary. Even extension methods keep me awake at night. I'm usually not in "less features to protect the idiots" camp, but I've worked with C enough to know the nightmares macros can cause. Although isn't not syntactic, first-class lightweight proxy support in the CLR is my #1 request, because it'll allow AOP. MBRO is just not an effective solution, and while DynamicProxy and similar CIL-generation libraries are great, it'd be nice to have it right in the runtime. (I mean, c'mon, Java's got it, and I'm not used to being envious of Java! :) This is where MethodMissing would be possible -- I really don't want that to exist on *all* types, but adding that to lightweight proxies would be great. I haven't had a chance to dig too far into it, but the DLR may offer some relief when it comes to proxy generation. I don't think we'll ever get a memberof() operator. The lookups are much more complex, because of method signatures and binding flags. The resulting syntax would be pretty ugly. I think this is one of those situations where a method call is a much more natural operation than an operator. http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment5http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment5Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:15:41 GMTMethodMissing would be extremely useful for things like proxies and DSLs. It would be interesting if ReSharper could help here. When you call a missing method, it currently offers to create the method. It could have a new option - to create something like: object MethodMissing(string methodName, params object[] args) { switch (methodName) { case "MyMethod": throw new NotImplementedException(); } } http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment4http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment4Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:35:14 GMT@Mike D, Of the top of my head? - AoP - Method Missing - Syntactic Macros - Allow [Attributes] to accept expression trees. - memebrinfo (like typeof(), but for memebers) http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment3http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment3Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:47:14 GMTOren, I totally agree on the brick wall, what would you like to see in the C# Language? http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment2http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment2Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:13:56 GMTThe real advancements will happen when new features are added to the frameworks as a whole, boiling down to features at the IL layer, like Generics and such added to .Net 2.0. C# 3.0's new features are, as we all know by now, built on top of v2.0 by and large implemented by the compiler alone. Rumor has it that the post-3.5 version will again add CLR features, hopefully with a whole new level of support for things as testing and concurrent programming. Fingers crossed. http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment1http://ayende.com/2508/c-2-0-is-done#comment1Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:11:03 GMT