Bug 14666, can we prioritize ?

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 06/10/2015 11:09 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> 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.

No, they don't. They just preclude the band-aid fix.

> This is surprisingly hard to get a well defined behavior
> for compile time feature.

This is a good thing because it makes reasonably sure the final 
resolution rules won't take order of declaration into account.

> I would argue to make them illegal, but that
> is still a good idea to avoid them when possible.

That's the lazy way. :o)

I really need to find some time to get back to D frontend implementation.

What does SDC do now?