Understanding the Common Language Specification

As you are aware, different languages express the same programming constructs in unique, language-specific terms. For example, in C# you denote string concatenation using the plus operator (+), while in VB you typically make use of the ampersand (&). Even when two distinct languages express the same programmatic idiom (e.g., a function with no return value), the chances are good that the syntax will appear quite different on the surface.

// C# method returning nothing.
public void MyMethod()
{
// Some interesting code...
}
’ VB method returning nothing.
Public Sub MyMethod()
’ Some interesting code...

End Sub

As you have already seen, these minor syntactic variations are inconsequential in the eyes of the .NET runtime, given that the respective compilers (csc.exe or vbc.exe, in this case) emit a similar set of CIL instructions. However, languages can also differ with regard to their overall level of functionality. For example, a .NET language might or might not have a keyword to represent unsigned data and might or might not support pointer types. Given these possible variations, it would be ideal to have a baseline to which all .NET-aware languages are expected to conform.

The CLS is a set of rules that describe in vivid detail the minimal and complete set of features a given .NET-aware compiler must support to produce code that can be hosted by the CLR, while at the same time be accessed in a uniform manner by all languages that target the .NET platform. In many ways, the CLS can be viewed as a subset of the full functionality defined by the CTS.

The CLS is ultimately a set of rules that compiler builders must conform to if they intend their products to function seamlessly within the .NET universe. Each rule is assigned a simple name (e.g., CLS Rule 6) and describes how this rule affects those who build the compilers as well as those who (in some way) interact with them. The crème de la crème of the CLS is Rule 1.

• Rule 1: CLS rules apply only to those parts of a type that are exposed outside the defining assembly.

Given this rule, you can (correctly) infer that the remaining rules of the CLS do not apply to the logic used to build the inner workings of a .NET type. The only aspects of a type that must conform to the CLS are the member definitions themselves (i.e., naming conventions, parameters, and return types). The implementation logic for a member may use any number of non-CLS techniques, as the outside world won’t know the difference.

To illustrate, the following C# Add() method is not CLS compliant, as the parameters and return values make use of unsigned data (which is not a requirement of the CLS):

class Calc

{

// Exposed unsigned data is not CLS compliant!

public ulong Add(ulong x, ulong y)

{

return x + y;

}

}

However, if you were to only make use of unsigned data internally in a method, as follows:

class Calc

{

public int Add(int x, int y)

{

// As this ulong variable is only used internally,

// we are still CLS compliant.

ulong temp = 0;

...

return x + y;

}

}

you have still conformed to the rules of the CLS and can rest assured that all .NET languages are able to invoke the Add() method.

Of course, in addition to Rule 1, the CLS defines numerous other rules. For example, the CLS describes how a given language must represent text strings, how enumerations should be represented internally (the base type used for storage), how to define static members, and so forth. Luckily, you don’t have to commit these rules to memory to be a proficient .NET developer. Again, by and large, an intimate understanding of the CTS and CLS specifications is typically of interest only to tool/compiler builders.