grauzone wrote: > Lars Ivar Igesund wrote: >> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: >> >>> We faced a bug that module static constructors don't work with cyclic >>> imports. Currently it's fixed with a dirty hack which is not really >>> acceptable. Is there any chance for this to be fixed? >> >> IMO it is the cyclic import that is the bug ;) > > Maybe all cyclic dependency bugs are on purpose, to teach people not to > use this evil D feature? Yeah, that must it be. I can't explain why else > these bugs/issues aren't fixed, and why people only reply with > incredibly useful statements like "but you shouldn't use this feature > anyway!". > > Broken features should be either fixed or removed. This half-assedness > about it isn't really going to help D.
Well it's about cyclic dependency of initialization via module constructors only right? Cyclic imports in general aren't (supposed to be) broken, nor are module constructors.
