I'm writing a code analyzer/fixer
Statements:
- The (most)analyzer/s is/are only working for specific types so it needs to know the typename at least.
- I only see examples on the internet where the typename is given as a string, and so if somebody refactor the library code and rename the type it'll broke the analyzer.
- I wanted to make the analyzer as a standalone assembly, not just creating an analyzer class inside the library code.
Question:
You could make things safer by directly reference the analyzed type inside the analyzer assembly instead of referring to it as a string right?
However I can't refer the library assembly from the analyzer, because it'll lead to circular dependencies
=> A third assembly required that contains the analyzed typed. Isn't this cause "management overhead"?
Any thoughts, and why i don't see examples that are directly referring to the analyzed type instead of referring to it as a string?
- The (most)analyzer/s is/are only working for specific types so it needs to know the typename at least.
- I only see examples on the internet where the typename is given as a string, and so if somebody refactor the library code and rename the type it'll broke the analyzer.
- I wanted to make the analyzer as a standalone assembly, not just creating an analyzer class inside the library code.
Question:
You could make things safer by directly reference the analyzed type inside the analyzer assembly instead of referring to it as a string right?
However I can't refer the library assembly from the analyzer, because it'll lead to circular dependencies
=> A third assembly required that contains the analyzed typed. Isn't this cause "management overhead"?
Any thoughts, and why i don't see examples that are directly referring to the analyzed type instead of referring to it as a string?
