Support not referencing VB

[svick]

I want to use Buildalyzer.Workspaces, but without referencing Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Workspaces (because I have a custom build of Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Worspaces). When I try to do that, I get the following exception:

System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic, Version=3.8.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'. The system cannot find the file specified.
File name: 'Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic, Version=3.8.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31bf3856ad364e35'
at Buildalyzer.Workspaces.AnalyzerResultExtensions.CreateParseOptions(IAnalyzerResult analyzerResult, String languageName)
at Buildalyzer.Workspaces.AnalyzerResultExtensions.GetProjectInfo(IAnalyzerResult analyzerResult, Workspace workspace, ProjectId projectId)
at Buildalyzer.Workspaces.AnalyzerResultExtensions.AddToWorkspace(IAnalyzerResult analyzerResult, Workspace workspace, Boolean addProjectReferences)
at Buildalyzer.Workspaces.AnalyzerResultExtensions.GetWorkspace(IAnalyzerResult analyzerResult, Boolean addProjectReferences)

This happens because of the following code in CreateCompilationOptions (and similar, but longer code in CreateParseOptions):

https://github.com/daveaglick/Buildalyzer/blob/da88770a2952f7894c05cd0866ef9d766f78aaea/src/Buildalyzer.Workspaces/AnalyzerResultExtensions.cs#L192-L200

This means that JIT compiling the method requires a reference to Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic, even if I only ever want to create C# options.

Extracting the language-specific code into a local function seems to fix this issue.

[daveaglick]

What an interesting side effect of local functions! I guess because they're "lifted" into separate methods? In any case, I've hit the merge button and am planning a release within the next day or two once I clear the remaining PR backlog. Thanks for the contribution, and sorry for the delay!

[svick]

I guess because they're "lifted" into separate methods?

Yes, exactly. Using regular methods would achieve the same effect, but I thought local functions were more appropriate here.