87

I've found a lot of pages about CLS compliance.

I've understood that CLS compliance:

Many peolple write that "if you write code, you should write it CLS compliant." But as far I can read, there is no reason to use CLS compliance in generic software.

Am I right, or did I miss something?

Improve this question
1

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
65

If you write a library or framework it makes sense to ensure your library can be used from any CLR language.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

6 Comments

CIL (Common Intermediate Language) is not sufficient?
afaik no, because CIL may contain features that are unusable from certain CLR languages. Eg. you have a method that takes UInt32 parameter, the CIL code is fine but the method cannot be invoked from a language that has no concept of unsigned.
What happens is the language is "translated" in CIL (having the source code, of course)? In this scenario, it seems CLS compliance is required only with legacy assemblies, right?
@TonyD Common Language Specification
Not to nitpick, @TonyD, but its probably easier to just google that than ask it in a comment on here. msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/…
|
55

CLS-compliance is particularly important if you're distributing libraries - specifically, writing CLS compliant guarantees that your libraries will be usable by all CLS-compliant languages.

For instance, Visual Basic is not case-sensitive, whereas C# is. One of the requirements of CLS compliance is that public (and protected) member names should not differ only by case, thus ensuring that your libraries can be used safely by Visual Basic code, or any other .NET language that doesn't differentiate based on case.

Improve this answer

4 Comments

There's also a rule that you can't start members with underscores. Which leaves me wondering how to name a protected variable that is wrapped by a public property... Can't use a lowercase version, can't use an underscore... what's the next ugly alternative?
Probably prefixing it with a p. Not pretty, but functional. While I prefer C# Properties over Java-style getters and setters, at least in Java the naming convention is easier.
Somehow, when it's all said and done, java ends up being more concise. I think it's probably more the libraries than the language, though.
PowerShell is also case-insensitive, which has always left me wondering how it'd behave when a .NET class contains members differ only in case
27

The answer is to allow maximum compatibility across .NET languages. CLS is the lingua franca that allows C# assemblies to work with F#, Iron Python, C++/CLI, VB.NET, Boo and all the other .NET languages. Step outside that boundary and your assembly may work correctly, but not necessarily.

Improve this answer

Comments

14

There may not be a specific reason to have your code be CLS compliant, but people are referring to it being a "best practice"--something that you should do because it's a good habit, rather than being measurably better for a particular scenario.

In other words, it's a good idea to make your code CLS compliant unless you have a reason not to.

Improve this answer

2 Comments

I find it very strange that many .NET libraries aren't CLS compliant. So pretty much any class that uses one of those components isn't compliant either.
@MrFox: Just using such a component is fine. Publicly exposing it makes your class non-compliant.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.