On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Bennie Kloosteman <[email protected]>wrote:
> - For the same type name in different libs , this is an issue but for > static compilation a parser can surely rename types and their cals and Bitc > main use will be static compilation. > But that isn't the issue here at all. The issue here is that we can have two parts of the program of co-equal stature, each claiming the right to * globally* define the behavior of '+' over a certain type. The respective behaviors may be completely unrelated, and each library is presumably coded to rely on its respective assumption. Under these conditions, there really isn't a good way to "pick" one. > For dynamic compilation you also have the "Dll hell or automake/.configure > hell " for what version of lib you are using and any modern > system should surely have versioning and not crappy and expensive to > maintain hand crafted make scripts? > Sure, but that's not related to the present discussion at all. It's an orthogonal issue. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
