> * The problem * > > Extracting a representative set of dependencies using the described > method is only possible when a high-level language compiler that > produces a code of the module translates the set of static module > requirements (i.e. the "import" section entries or "use Module::Name" > expressions) into the corresponding load instructions and places the in > the module initialization section (:init :load), not the "main" module code. > > * The proposition. Questions * > > From my point of view, that policy seems logical and natural. Is it > the same for you?
No. Just an example: a module should be able to choose what to load during its initialization, depending on environment variables, arguments passed to a initialization sub... > Anyway I don't like policies. Instead of that I propose to make some > modifications to the PCT in such a way that any properly defined > compiler would produce a code with all static module loading procedures PCT is just a set of tools. Is not the only way of writing compilers targeting parrot. Another point of view: this is just a matter of using an appropriate definition. If a module is loaded via PIR directives or during :load / :init phase, is "static" and is a dependency. If not, is dynamically loaded ans should not be considered a dependency. -- Salu2 _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
