Bug 14666, can we prioritize ?

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 16:03:17 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 6/10/15 8:41 AM, Brian Rogoff wrote:
>> I agree with you, Walter, that mutual recursion amongst 
>> imports is
>> usually bad, but I think you inadvertently made the right 
>> decision by
>> allowing it in D, and that the bug should be fixed. If people 
>> overuse it
>> to write messy code then the community should tell them to 
>> write that
>> code better.
>
> I agree. I'm one of those folks who think circular dependencies 
> are fine, thank you very much, and the few cases in which it 
> causes problems should be flagged and diagnosed in a principled 
> way.
>
> Everybody also likes:
>
> * recursion and mutual recursion of any depth (there's a lot 
> more of it going in the usual programs than one might think)
>
> * recursive and mutually recursive types
>
> * declaring top level names in any order and they just "work"
>
> But all of a sudden, people get sugar in their gasoline and 
> sand in their gears when they hear of the same thing applied to 
> modules. I suspect it's because some legacy languages didn't 
> quite do a stellar job at it. Figuring that stuff out and 
> pointing out problems is exactly the kind of thing computers 
> are good at and humans, not so good.
>
>
> Andrei

Cyclic imports create problems that do not exists with forward 
declaration. This is surprisingly hard to get a well defined 
behavior for compile time feature. I would argue to make them 
illegal, but that is still a good idea to avoid them when 
possible.