QtD 0.1 is out!

[Fawzi Mohamed]

On 2009-02-27 21:49:58 +0100, Fawzi Mohamed <fmohamed at mac.com> said:

> On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> said:
> 
>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
>>> constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with
>>> cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this
>>> is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of
>>> cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is
>>> inconsistent..
>> 
>> One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever 
>> possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a 
>> source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to 
>> have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a 
>> bit.
> 
> I fully agree,
*avoiding*
> circular dependencies between modules is in general a good practice:
> a circular dependency it means that you have tight coupling, in in that 
> case it is normally better to have everything in the same module to 
> have a better control on it.
> Sometime one has cases in which circular dependencies arise, two ways 
> to get rid of them are for example:
> 
> 1) define and interface, the circular dependency is in the interfaces 
> that are described in the same module, the two (or more) modules 
> include the interfaces, and are not directly dependent on each other 
> (only through the interfaces)
> 
> 2) use templates, the circular dependencies are on a template 
> parameter. The circular dependencies arise only upon instantiation