Il 16/09/2013 17:24, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> > >> > Shouldn't we have a constant for the "realized" string? > That's a two-sided sword: We actually shouldn't be setting realized = > true manually but once on machine init - in that case we wouldn't > strictly need a constant. > > I pushed to get that central infrastructure in place to spare me/us the > repetitive realized = true setting, but Paolo shot it down, asking for a > full-fledged solver to make ordering guarantees. >
Actually, I said my understanding of the problem was that we have two "conflicting" hierarchies. I didn't really ask for a solver, more like a topological sort actually, which is very simple to implement. But above everything else I asked to prove me wrong. I provided IIRC an example where the hierarchies were conflicting, could that example be incorrect? The discussion died down. Could it be a topic for tomorrow's call? I certainly would prefer to have realized = true at machine-ready time, I think it was even part of the very first RFC realized series that were posted. Paolo
