Code modernization in System.Linq

[roji]

Here are three relatively impactful code cleanups, done automatically and split into three separate commits for easier reviewing/undoing etc.

[xtqqczze]

This might be too big to review. How about merging the most impactful change first, i.e. IDE0161: Convert to file-scoped namespace.

[stephentoub]

Use file-scoped namespace declarations in System.Linq

The repo doesn't use file-scoped namespaces; I don't think we want to change the style per library.

[eiriktsarpalis]

Use file-scoped namespace declarations in System.Linq

The repo doesn't use file-scoped namespaces; I don't think we want to change the style per library.

@stephentoub do we want to consider switching the repo to file-scoped namespaces in the future? Would be nice if we could save ourselves one tab of indentation.

[roji]

This might be too big to review.

@xtqqczze note that each change is a distinct commit, that should help.

[EgorBo]

Use file-scoped namespace declarations in System.Linq

The repo doesn't use file-scoped namespaces; I don't think we want to change the style per library.

@stephentoub do we want to consider switching the repo to file-scoped namespaces in the future? Would be nice if we could save ourselves one tab of indentation.

afair some *.cs files have multiple namespace scopes in the same file?
I guess such a massive change will impact git blame experience (and, well, put all active PRs into a "in-conflict" state 😆)

[stephentoub]

Use file-scoped namespace declarations in System.Linq

The repo doesn't use file-scoped namespaces; I don't think we want to change the style per library.

@stephentoub do we want to consider switching the repo to file-scoped namespaces in the future? Would be nice if we could save ourselves one tab of indentation.

afair some *.cs files have multiple namespace scopes in the same file? I guess such a massive change will impact git blame experience (and, well, put all active PRs into a "in-conflict" state 😆)

It also makes servicing much harder.

[roji]

Thanks for the reviewing. Have removed the file-scoped namespaces, and corrected the other stuff.

[roji]

It also makes servicing much harder.

Yeah, FWIW in EF and Npgsql we try to do this kind of thing (and general large code cleanups) before we lock down a major release, to make servicing easier. It's true file-scoped namespaces do make git blaming slightly harder - I personally do think it's worth prioritizing code niceness with them, and worth the one-time pain (but I get that it's non-trivial and removed that commit).

[stephentoub]

before we lock down a major release, to make servicing easier

Can you elaborate?

[roji]

Can you elaborate?

Just that before a release is locked down, we usually do an automated code cleanup, to align code to the repo settings in .editorconfig and similar; this fixes any violations that have accumulated over the year from contributions where some rule wasn't respected. The timing - just before locking down the major version - is specifically done to make servicing easier, compared to e.g. if we did the cleanup right after the cleanup, at which point any backport would risk a conflict because of styling etc.

[stephentoub]

The timing - just before locking down the major version - is specifically done to make servicing easier, compared to e.g. if we did the cleanup right after the cleanup, at which point any backport would risk a conflict because of styling etc.

Thanks. dotnet/runtime invariably has multiple release branches active at any one time. That complicates this, eg when locking down the .NET 10 release, we'll still have release/8.0 and release/9.0 active for another 6-12 months.

[roji]

@stephentoub EF has the same servicing policy, with the multiple release branches - and it's indeed not ideal... Though the number of patches that go into older releases is typically very small compared to the number that goes into the just-released version (for example, there's typically a larger number of backports needed just after a major release, but far fewer that needs to go back even further).

Not necessarily trying to argue for anything here - just sharing info.

[eiriktsarpalis]

Should we perhaps open an issue tracking the introduction of file-scoped namespaces? Might be easier to invite debate from the wider team.