Fixing cyclic import static construction problems

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/30/12 9:09 AM, foobar wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 November 2012 at 23:02:17 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/30/2012 9:43 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> It is possible for each static constructor to specify independently of
>>> the other static constructors which imports must be constructed first.
>>> But do we really want to go that far?
>>
>> One way to do that might be to borrow syntax from classes:
>>
>> static this() : std.stdio, a, c
[snip]
> Why not simplify?
[snip]

Why not further simplify?

static this()
{
     // JUST AS BEFORE
     ...
}

There is no need to redundantly specify what modules are used because... 
well they are right there in the body of the static constructor.

* no extra syntax
* no change in the symbol visibility rules (why are symbols invisible by 
default in static cdtors?)
* no change to the manual
* no breakage of existing code (only code that was broken will be accepted)
* no acceptance of actual circular dependencies go through compilation

This would be purely an improvement to the implementation that would 
allow more correct programs to compile. It's a removal of limitation - 
the best kind of language change there ever is.

We should have a "bootcamp" area with small compiler and library 
projects (such as this after we reach consensus). People who are 
interested in helping D, whether or not they've done it before, could 
find this area things that are well defined and will definitely be 
accepted if properly executed.


Andrei