In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Martin Blais" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2006 05:25:14 -0700, John Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The general rule is: don't do that. It doesn't work, and the >> hoops you have to go through to force it to work are so >> complex and bizzare that they're not worth it. Redesign >> the modules so you don't have cyclic dependencies. > >This is a matter completely aside the question. No it isn't. I agree with John Roth. >Whether it's worth it >or not depends on the specific case --not included in the example-- >and in the case where it shows up in my code, removing the cycle >actually made sense (it does, most of the time, but not always). See, even you are unable to come up with an example where a cyclic import makes sense. In general, the complications they introduce are simply not worth it. This was discovered decades ago, during the development of languages like Ada and Modula-2 which could do automatic initialization and finalization of library modules arranged by the compiler/linker system. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list