<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MTS06 - LINQ and C#</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/</link>
	<description>Brian Pontarelli</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Pontarelli</title>
		<link>http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Pontarelli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:58:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-28</guid>
		<description>That's really good to know. This was something I was asking about specifically at the summit. It is essentially a block that has a DSL inside it. This is something that I've thought that most other languages should start adopting in order to allow IDEs and parsers to handle these blocks better. I don't know of any other languages that support this except C#. Anyone else know of any?

One other question is why not delineate the LINQ with a block instead of making it context bound? This might make the code simpler to read. Something like the ruby execution blocks:

%l{LINQ statement}</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s really good to know. This was something I was asking about specifically at the summit. It is essentially a block that has a DSL inside it. This is something that I&#8217;ve thought that most other languages should start adopting in order to allow IDEs and parsers to handle these blocks better. I don&#8217;t know of any other languages that support this except C#. Anyone else know of any?</p>
<p>One other question is why not delineate the LINQ with a block instead of making it context bound? This might make the code simpler to read. Something like the ruby execution blocks:</p>
<p>%l{LINQ statement}</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Warren</title>
		<link>http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Warren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Apr 2006 07:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Brian, the new 'keywords' added to C# 3.0 are not keywords at all.  They are context sensitive just like the additional non-keywords that were introduced in 2.0 like 'yield'.  You can safely declare a variable named 'from' without confusing it with a query.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian, the new &#8216;keywords&#8217; added to C# 3.0 are not keywords at all.  They are context sensitive just like the additional non-keywords that were introduced in 2.0 like &#8216;yield&#8217;.  You can safely declare a variable named &#8216;from&#8217; without confusing it with a query.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2006 03:49:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brian.pontarelli.com/2006/04/12/mts06-linq-and-c/#comment-25</guid>
		<description>Good stuff, Brian. I've been reading some of Erik Meijer's articles on LINQ and the subject matter intrigues me.

You didn't mention "Haskell" once in you post, though.
:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff, Brian. I&#8217;ve been reading some of Erik Meijer&#8217;s articles on LINQ and the subject matter intrigues me.</p>
<p>You didn&#8217;t mention &#8220;Haskell&#8221; once in you post, though.<br />
:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
