On Sep 10, 1:38 am, ntupel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 23:57 +1000, Brett Morgan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 9, 11:26 am, "Brett Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> For C, protection against circular dependencies is on the head of the
> > >> programmer, in the form of #ifdef guards.
>
> > > There is #import as a GCC extension (also used in Objective-C).
>
> > Which expand out to #ifdef guards, if memory serves.
>
> So what? It just shows you another effective way to tackle the cycle
> problem.
First off, let me say that there's nothing wrong in your asking for
this feature, and I'd like to get this dialogue back on a productive
track.
> As a programmer I don't care if I use "include" or "import" or
> "require" to load my dependencies. But I do care if I need to make extra
> steps to not include stuff twice.
If you don't write any cyclic dependencies there are no extra steps.
This is not about multiple includes, that is already handled.
If you do write cyclic dependencies, there is a bug in your program
logic.
You don't like the way the bug is manifested/reported, point taken.
So far, for me, this seems highly theoretical. If it becomes a common
problem for people, I'll be happy to make an enhancement in this area.
If you don't want to wait, submit a patch (and a CA if you haven't
already), and I'll look at it. I will say that the "silent ignore"
path is not an option - cyclic dependencies are an error you can't
leave in place. There will be other tools that need the dependencies
to be acyclic.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
