"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:itb6os$161f$1...@digitalmars.com... > 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. >
I do have reasons, but TBH I really don't have any more time or energy for these uphill debates right now.
