DI Generation Needs your Help!

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:27:20 -0800, Martin Nowak <dawg at dawgfoto.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:22:10 +0100, Rainer Schuetze <r.sagitario at gmx.de>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 19.12.2011 09:11, Adam Wilson wrote:
>>> Currently, I feel that private imports should be stripped from the DI
>>> file as they are intended to be internal to the module. However, I want
>>> to put it to the community to decide, and I would especially appreciate
>>> Mr. Bright's opinion on private imports in DI files.
>>
>> I'd very much like the dependencies to be shrinked in the di file, but  
>> I think you can only remove private imports if you can guarantee that  
>> no symbols are referenced by the generated di file (e.g. function  
>> signatures, variable types, templates).
>>
>> IIRC removing imports might also have an influence on generated static  
>> ctor execution order, because there are some optimizations that remove  
>> dependencies if no imports with static ctors are found in a referenced  
>> module.
>>
> No it should not, an import will not actually create the module info that
> contains the import dependencies. So the initialization order will still  
> rely
> solely on the compiled module.
> OTOH not declaring private static ctors can lead to unreferenced module  
> infos
> that would otherwise end up in the final executable.
>
>> Otherwise, having a version of the di file without any implementation  
>> sounds like a good idea.

At this point it sounds like I need to keep all private members and  
imports. No problem, that's easy enough.

-- 
Adam Wilson
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/