Closed Unkorunk closed 1 year ago
Not sure. My changes target to add possible save enum even if base types like int can't be resolved, because I think in current version of mono.cecil exist unnecessary extra check for user protection. I think it's good say to users if users do something wrong when it's possible, but approch when we block saving assembly only because user maybe did something wrong maybe didn't, i think it's not good approch.
p.s. this is my subjective opinion. I hope no one gets offended
Both PRs were opened to fix the same bug; the difference is that #702 is more comprehensive and entirely avoids resolving types, while this one provides a fallback in case it was not found.
@jbevain, could you please share your thoughts? I believe @teo-tsirpanis's summary above is correct. While you've marked #702 as an unacceptable trade-off, what about this fallback?
you've marked #702 as an unacceptable trade-off
It also doesn't mean that it's not an acceptable trade-off.
He didn't say that, double negation can be confusing. 😅
Ah, I'm sorry: I was, indeed, confused by the words there.
Duplicate of #702?