On 6/15/11 3:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu"<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message
news:itagdr$29mt$1...@digitalmars.com...
On 6/15/11 8:33 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I can't really think of any other issues.
Allow me to repeat: the scheme as you mention it is unable to figure and
load dependent remote libraries for remote libraries. It's essentially a
flat scheme in which you know only the top remote library but nothing
about the rest.
The dip takes care of that by using transitivity and by relying on the
presence of dependency information exactly where it belongs - in the
dependent source files.
Dependency information is already in the source: The "import" statement.
The actual path to the depndencies does not belong in the source file - that
*is* a configuration matter, and cramming it into the source only makes
configuring harder.
Why? I mean I can't believe it just because you are saying it. On the
face of it, it seems that on the contrary, there's no more need for
crummy little configuration files definition, discovery, adjustment,
parsing, etc. Clearly such are needed in certain situations but I see no
reason on why they must be the only way to go.
Andrei
