On 03/29/2013 04:22 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 28 March 2013 at 18:24:19 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Yes; DMD is buggy and the specification is insufficient. Currently the
meaning of D code as interpreted by DMD may depend on the order the
modules are passed to the compiler on the command line.
Can you have a look at http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31 ?
I have written a proposal to specify this, but it does currently not
precise/complete enough.
Poisoning is the right approach. However, the analysis order should be
the order of potential dependencies between mixin expressions/static if
conditions and potentially generated symbols. In case there is a cycle
in the potential dependencies, the symbol lookups occuring in the
connected component that appears first in a topological ordering of all
connected components of the potential-dependency graph should poison the
respective scopes. Analysis can then proceed, because the potential
dependencies on the cycle are eliminated.
It is possible that your way of dealing with overloads is fine, however,
I'd just have poisoned those overloads that would necessitate revisiting
an already taken overload-resolution decision.
