On 03/29/2013 03:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
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.
...
I meant to write _strongly_ connected components, obviously.
