XSharp "Anjou", Update 1

We have just released XSharp "Anjou" Update 1.

This update fixes some issues that were found in the last week:


  • Fixed a problem with VERY old versions of the Vulcan Runtime (early Vulcan 2 versions)
  • Variables declared as DIM Byte[] and similar are now Pinned by the compiler
  • [Return] attribute was not properly handled by the compiler. This has been fixed
  • Compound Assignment (u+= f or -=) from USUAL and FLOAT were causing a stackoverflow at runtime caused by a problem in the Vulcan Runtime. These expressions now generate a compiler error with the suggestion to change to a simple assignment ( u := u + f)

Visual Studio Integration

  • Project References between XSharp Projects were also loaded as assemblyreference when resolving types. This could lead to speed problems and unnecessary memory usage
  • Improved the speed of the construction of Completion Lists (such as methods and fields for a type).
  • We have also added Completion List Tabs, where you can see fields, properties, methods etc. on separate tabs. You can enable/disable this in the Tools/Options/Text Editor/XSharp/Intellisense options page.

VO Xporter

  • We have added a check to make sure that the default namespace for a X# project cannot contain a whitespace character

On behalf of the Devteam I want to thank you all for the nice feedback that we got in the last week.This is really appreciated !


  • Really cool to see the team's dedication at work - THX!
    One nitpick: "" ? Given, that even folks like @Postgres switched to a 1 digit scheme <G>, i'd left it at 1.0.2 :whistle:
  • Thank you for this update! I can confirm that all my applications compile with this compiler release, had only to make a few adjustments in legacy code for the compound assignment between usuals and floats
  • Karl,
    There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.

  • Nah, the final dot in the version number is actually the decimal separator! So in decimal notation that would have been 1.0.1,5

    OK, I guess it would had been better to simply admit that we indeed used way too many subversion numbers, but I could not resist :-)

  • [quote name=&quot;Chris Pyrgas&quot;]OK, I guess it would had been better to simply admit that we indeed used way too many subversion numbers[/quote] Now that's true greatness! ;)

  • I am not sure if I am allowed to say! And if I am, I still don't know exactly the answer :-)
    Let's see if Fabrice or Robert will step in here..