Static constructors in circularly imported modules - again

[Eldar Insafutdinov]

Max Samukha Wrote:

> On 27.05.2010 13:37, Max Samukha wrote:
> > There was a discussion about those a while ago that terminated with
> > Andrei's authoritative "it would be a step backward".
> >
> > I am not entirely convinced that there had been a step forward in the
> > first place. Defining static construction order to be determined by the
> > module import graph had been a half step forward. Completely disallowing
> > static construction of circularly imported modules - a half step
> > backward. The result is std.stdiobase and impossibility to initialize
> > static data in mixins without resorting to lazy initialization.
> >
> > I can live with hacks like std.stdiobase when such are possible. What is
> > more critical is initialization of mixins. Restating the problem:
> >
> > module a;
> > mixin template Foo()
> > {
> > static immutable Object foo;
> > shared static this()
> > {
> > foo = cast(immutable)new Object;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > ----
> > module b;
> > import a;
> > import c;
> >
> > mixin Foo;
> >
> > ----
> > module c;
> > import a;
> > import b;
> >
> > mixin Foo;
> >
> > In this scenario one is forced to avoid static constructors by lazily
> > initializing foo and using some kind of synchronization, which should be
> > absolutely unnecessary and sometimes is not tolerable.
> >
> > So which of the following is going to happen?
> >
> > 1. The current blinkered design will stay.
> > 2. A solution will be provided before D2 is feature-freezed.
> 
> Feature-frozen. Sorry.
> 
> >
> > Note that I am well aware of
> > http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ctors.html#fqa-10.12 etc, but simply
> > disallowing static construction is not a good solution for static
> > construction problems.
> 
> I'd really appreciate a reply from the language designers. What are the 
> plans?
> 
> 1. Static constructor semantics won't change.
> 2. We've worked out a solution and it will be implemented in a future 
> compiler release.
> 
> Please care to type 1 or 2. Thank you!

Why has it become a tradition to ignore uncomfortable questions in these newsgroups?