[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: fullyQualifiedLogicalName syntax
The spec says:
The format of fullyQualifiedLogicalName SHALL be consistent with the programming language in which the programmatic construct specified by that logical location was expressed.
EXAMPLE 1: C: create_process
EXAMPLE 2: C++: Namespace1::Class::Method(int, double) const &&
EXAMPLE 3: C#: Namespace1.Class.Method(string, int)
But we’ve talked about loosening that SHALL because you had some examples where it didn’t make sense. (I placed a comment in the change draft for #145 to remind me to take this up with you.)
What’s the scenario where FQLN doesn’t match a programming language construct? Did it have to do with tools that analyzed in-memory object models rather than source code?