Is Disposable the only allowed interface for ARM blocks?

[Michael Bien]

Neal, Josh,

thank you both for the rapid answer.
I already thought about extension methods and looked at the current 
lambda proposal but couldn't figure out how they would help in the 
situation (without strange idioms like doing a static import in client 
code to be able to call release() instead of close()).

Its probably best to stay with my own Releasable interface (in a public 
api) and check again later if it could be made ARM forward compatible 
afterwards.

best regards,
michael


On 03/01/2010 05:57 PM, Neal Gafter wrote:
> Michael-
>
> Extension methods may provide a completely different approach that one
> can use to get a more flexible specification for ARM, including
> support for different method names, but it may be some weeks before
> project lambda has that in its draft specification for us to build on.
>
> Cheers,
> Neal
>
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Michael Bien<mbien at fh-landshut.de>  wrote:
>    
>> Hello,
>>
>> Disposable.close() is intuitive if applied on streams but not necessary
>> in other situations. It would be nice to have other synonyms like e.g
>> dispose() or release(). I think there was an discussion about allowing
>> more interfaces on this list but it seems the ARM proposal only suggests
>> Disposable with close().
>> Is this final?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Bien
>> http://michael-bien.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>      
>
>    


-- 
Michael Bien
http://michael-bien.com/