Yes they are. static constructors completely chicken out on them. Not
only is
there no real attempt to determine whether the static constructors are
actually dependent (which granted, isn't an easy problem), but there is
_zero_
support in the language for resolving such circular dependencies.
There's no
way to say that they _aren't_ dependent even if you can clearly see that
they
aren't. The solution used in Phobos (which won't work in std.datetime
due to
the use of immutable and pure) is to create a C module which has the
code from
the static constructor and then have a separate module which calls it in
its
static constructor.
Which is a hack because that C function is a compiler wall while the
dependency
persists. Btw. that stdiobase and datebase are obsolete the cycles have
vanished.
You will get this only if std.dateparse had a shared static ctor too.
Cycle detected between modules with ctors/dtors:
std.date -> std.dateparse -> std.date
object.Exception@src/rt/minfo.d(309): Aborting!
There is a cleaner hack to solve the issue but I really don't like it.
It's two DAGs that are iterated one for "shared static this" and
one for "static this".
----
module a;
import b;
shared static this()
{
}
----
module b;
import a, core.atomic : cas;
shared bool initialized;
static this()
{
if (!cas(&initialized, false, true)) return;
...
}
----
