Review of Andrei's std.benchmark

["Øivind"]

On Saturday, 22 September 2012 at 13:25:47 UTC, Øivind wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2012 at 13:03:06 UTC, Andrei 
> Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 9/22/12 8:28 AM, "Øivind" wrote:
>>> Is there a way to solve the dependency issue without 
>>> forbidding static
>>> constructors in modules with cyclic dependencies?
>>
>> I think an idea just occurred to me. The rules for static 
>> ctors and dtors were invented before "import" was allowed 
>> inside a scope. We could have taken advantage of that.
>>
>> Say we restrict symbol visibility inside static cdtors to ONLY 
>> symbols within the current module. If some static cdtor needs 
>> a symbol from a different module, it must import it explicitly 
>> (even if the current module already imports it).
>>
>> In this setup it should be possible to compute, in a 
>> fine-grained manner, the dependencies of static cdtors.
>>
>> Unfortunately that would be a breaking change.
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>
> It gets a bit ugly maybe, but we could do a mix of the 
> proposals that have come before and this one, e.g. add a 
> @nocycliccheck (or similar) to the static constructor,  and in 
> that case only allow access to current module and those imorted 
> inside the ctor scope..

We would probably not call it '@nycycliccheck' since you propose 
to still do these checks, but only local imports :) Would need 
another name for it.