On 2009-02-27 21:10:29 +0100, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> said:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Now we have to make a manual init function called from class
constructors. I understand that allowing static consructors with
cyclic imports will make order of their execution undefined, but this
is acceptable and actually semantically doesn't break the idea of
cyclic imports. Otherwise in my opinion this behavior is
inconsistent..
One of the goals of D is to eliminate undefined behavior wherever
possible. In C++, the undefined order of static construction was a
source of many porting problems. I think it's better in the long run to
have a defined order, even if it means having to reorganize the code a
bit.
I fully agree, circular dependencies between modules is in general a
good practice:
a circular dependency it means that you have tight coupling, in in that
case it is normally better to have everything in the same module to
have a better control on it.
Sometime one has cases in which circular dependencies arise, two ways
to get rid of them are for example:
1) define and interface, the circular dependency is in the interfaces
that are described in the same module, the two (or more) modules
include the interfaces, and are not directly dependent on each other
(only through the interfaces)
2) use templates, the circular dependencies are on a template
parameter. The circular dependencies arise only upon instantiation
