http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=340
------- Comment #6 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-13 21:30 ------- I think if you want to define forward references in the restricted classical definition of "lexical precedence," then bugs like 1667 would not be covered by this one. But it would be a pointless distinction between lexical forward references and semantic ones. Any time the compiler outputs an error about forward references/declarations, it means it's not walking the symbol dependency graph in the correct order. That the compiler sometimes resolves dependencies lexically and sometimes not is irrelevant to the fact that it is resolving them incorrectly. (funny - your last two comments were posted one year apart to the day.) --
