The spec gives:
const <MemberType>& <MemberName>() const
But for basic types/int this will result in a warning, for basic/enum it should be
<MemberType> <MemberName>() const
The spec says:
A public constant accessor method with the name of the union member that returns a constant reference to
its value:
const <MemberType>& <MemberName>() const;
Accessing an invalid union member may result in an undefined error.
A language mapping should be precise and very clear to my idea, the user should know what happens if an invalid union member is accessed, this could happen in some cases, the spec should specify which exception will be thrown so that the programmer can react on this, saying it is undefined is not enough.
This should be changed to a "may" or a "could". Shall seems overly prescriptive.
How could a compliant implementation of Equals<T> be distinguished from Equals(Object) from the callers/users perspective?
The annotations should be covered in a separate section of the document and NOT be part of a clean, canonical example.
Suggest:
// IDL
enum E
;
// C#
public enum E
;
Also should enums inherit uint?
Anonymous types should be moved to their own section
Suggest:
//IDL
typedef long myLongArray[2][3];
// C# example
Suggestion is to have one section or appendix where possible naming mappings could be covered.
Change the IDL example naming to match the C# community expectations if that makes it easier to specify
Beside basic types no other canonical example is included. I suggest removing the basic types and having one example.
// IDL
struct foo
;
Something like this.
Types such as sbyte and int32 are included in this section and should not be.
These types should be moved to the extended types section.
The section for these types is missing from the document.
The section that describes the default value does not include a discussion
of what to do when a default is not present. In this case a method called _default or
__default should be defined to set the discriminant to a non-switched field value.
This should be fixed before December.
Every scope containing a constant declaration shall contain a public static partial class.
The "public static partial class" is inconsistent with the examples in 7.2.3.1 above.
The use of "partial" is suspect and cannot span assemblies. It may be useful for forward interface declarations though whose definition appears in another IDL file.