Can Inaccessible Fields Be Set In IL without Reflection? RRS feed

  • Question

  • This question may seem silly to the casual observer, but I'm writing a compiler that aims to automate SI containment patterns with MI semantics. One blocking issue I'm seeing with this is working with contained fields that would represent inherited ancestors. This shows up in the form of member access to fields that aren't guaranteed to be accessible since the type hierarchy is disconnected. Is it possible to deal with this without reliance on reflection? This is important since I would like to optimize delegation patterns out of the code I wish to generate, but member access violations at the CLR level seems to prevent this from becoming a reality.
    Saturday, August 15, 2015 12:35 AM

All replies

  • Hello,

    I am trying to invite someone who familiar with this technology to jump into this case.

    Thank you for your understanding.


    We are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time. Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.
    Click HERE to participate the survey.

    Monday, August 17, 2015 5:13 AM