Notice (2018-05-24): bugzilla.xamarin.com is now in
Please join us on
Visual Studio Developer Community and in the
Mono organizations on
GitHub to continue tracking issues. Bugzilla will remain
available for reference in read-only mode. We will continue to work
on open Bugzilla bugs, copy them to the new locations
as needed for follow-up, and add the new items under Related
Our sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed on this bug
tracker over the years. Thanks also for your understanding as we
make these adjustments and improvements for the future.
Please create a new report on
Developer Community or GitHub with
your current version information, steps to reproduce, and relevant error
messages or log files if you are hitting an issue that looks similar to
this resolved bug and you do not yet see a matching new report.
Another case where "Type" will be confusing to .NET developers.
agreed, fixed in maccore/xcode7 4c4f0d929034bdc959c7071e3178ea5438545616
I disagree to go down this path.
In general, a property named Type would never be allowed by the compiler in a context that might be a problem in the compiler.
In addition, the "Type" idiom is already widely used in Xamarin.iOS, some 68 instances exist today.
There's a thin and personal line between unclear and confusion, fwiw I think that:
1. Out of context (e.g. snippet, docs, online discussion, googling) it's not clear which kind of type it is;
2. .NET developers will think of System.Type first (and be wrong). Apple does not have to care as much since they use `Class` when we use `Type`;
3. There'a already many prefixed *Type properties, because several 'classes' (not to reuse 'types' ;-) already needs more than one. Anything with a single `Type` property today can find itself with `*Type` neighbors in the future;
In any case it's not major and it's true we do already have many (like typos ;-). OTOH it's something we can easily provide extra clarity in our API (at least before it's released and frozen). Feel free to revert.