On 8/22/07, Sunnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Benedikt Rosenau wrote: > > Anyway, I propose the following: please keep dependencies between > > eggs small. > I disagree; sometimes, it seems better to split common code to libraries > than to have duplication. Dependencies can be hell, but so can duplication. > > > Further, no mutual dependencies (A needs B, and B needs > > A) should be created. > I guess I can agree with that. If that should happen, here are two > solutions to that: > Either: > 1) create a third package, C, with the stuff from A that B depends on, > so that A depends on B and C, and B depends on C, or: > 2) join the two packages. >
I agree with Benedikt that dependencies should be kept at a minimum. It starts with simple sharing of code but quickly everything ends up in a tangle of dependencies that no one can comprehend. "tool" is a good example: tool -> srfi-37, args-doc args-doc -> srfi-37, srfi-95 srfi-95 -> array-lib array-lib -> srfi-42, miscmacros, misc-extn srfi-42 -> syntax-case This is insane. (I've taken part in this mess, BTW) cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
