On Thursday, 3 November 2016 at 15:51:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

Any cycles that are "newly discovered" were already there. What was happening is that the runtime did not detect the cycle, and was arbitrarily choosing an order for initializing these modules. Either a) the arbitrary order happened to be right, or b) the order didn't matter. Most of the time it's b, because most static ctors don't depend on externally initialized items.

My question is: any cycle is invalid?

-Johan
  • Re: Release D 2.072.0 Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: Release D 2.072.0 Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-announce
  • Re: Release D 2.072.0 Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce
    • Re: Release D 2.072.0 Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d-announce
      • Re: Release D 2.0... Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: Release D... anonymous via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: Relea... anonymous via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • Re: ... Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Johan Engelen via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Kagamin via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-announce
              • ... Dicebot via Digitalmars-d-announce

Reply via email to