"Jeff Gaines" <whitedragon@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xn0fuqrla1uvibc004@xxxxxx
Quote:
> I appreciate that I could compile them into a class library but each time
> they are used I come across another property/function that I need and it
> is much easier to change the source from a project and re-compile than to
> have to open and re-compile half a dozen class libraries.
You need to think about organization of your modules before you write them.
An ad-hoc approach where you just slap the class where it's easier (for
now), and assembly partitions are arbitrary, doesn't scale.
Also, why "open and re-compile"? Create a multi-project solution, set up
dependencies between projects within it (make sure you're adding _project_
dependencies, not _file_ dependencies - the latter is when you just pick the
..dll in Browse), and just kick off builds with Ctrl+Shift+B. Visual Studio
(or, more precisely, MSBuild) will take care of dependency resolution, and
will rebuild only the stuff that needs rebuilding.
Quote:
> What do other people do about this? I was very disappointed not to find a
> #include directive in C#.
This is the first time I've actually seen someone nostalgic for #include.
Given that people are pushing to phase it out in C++ now (hopefully by the
next TR after C++0x), it's a strange sentiment.
Anyway, you don't need #include in C#, because it doesn't have the concept
of headers.
Quote:
> Is there a way I can structure things so that I can link to all files in a
> directory for instance, rather than to each individual file in the
> directory?
No, but why not just make an assembly out of all those files in a directory,
and then link to that?