2

This type/member supports the .NET Framework infrastructure and is not intended to be used directly from your code.

Can anyone speak to the fact that the System.Web.Razor.* namespaces are polluted with this?

This seems plain irresponsible, if not insulting. I would like to understand the rationale behind this decision, and my question to any .NET contributors is, why?

Addendum
I've asked this question after having raged a bit in a comment here. While similar, the intent of my question differs; however if anyone can assist the OP of the linked question, I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Dan Lugg
  • 20,192
  • 19
  • 110
  • 174
  • Without knowing anything about it, my guess is that the type needs to be public to the eyes of the CLR but needs to access internal members of the assembly. They don't want it to be _conceptually_ public, possibly because they want to be able to change the interface between versions of the assemblies, but other factors (like code generated by tools) require that the implementations are `public`. – zneak Dec 11 '12 at 21:55
  • 1
    @zneak Thanks for your thoughts. Provided that is true, that the interface would foresee-ably change drastically enough to warrant the deferral of writing API documentation, then I would consider it a failure on behalf of the Razor team, or whomever oversees it. That would sound like a rushed product, and that pisses me off. Provided, of course :) – Dan Lugg Dec 11 '12 at 22:02

0 Answers0