Bug 14666, can we prioritize ?

[Kenji Hara via Digitalmars-d]

2015-06-10 15:55 GMT+09:00 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>:

> On 6/9/2015 10:39 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> The actual code is far more complex than the presented sample :)
>>
>> That what I'm trying to do in general, but here I'm faced with cases that
>> are
>> very hard to untangle.
>>
>
> The 'tangle' of cyclical import graphs, as you so appropriately put, is
> not only hard on the compiler, it makes it much harder for human readers to
> make sense of code. Even reading your little code snippet hurts my brain.
>
> Go, in one of their better decisions, decided "Thou Shalt Not Have Import
> Cycles". This forces users to untangle their code, and I believe that is A
> Good Thing.
>
> I'd like to do that for D, but of course it is far too late for that.
>

D has true forward reference resolution mechanism. In that case modules are
cyclic imported, but the declared symbols don't have actual cyclic
references. Therefore the snippet should work.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4735

And the regression was introduced by your unrelated change. While fixing
the issue, I couldn't understand why it was necessary.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/a04cf864b932061ad7b72e7cad8b16fabc6a825a

Kenji Hara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150610/9f98704d/attachment.html>