"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Currently, it is performed as a strictly "depth-first" traversal of the > graph defined by the import statements. As we've been discussing here, > this works great until one has circular imports, meaning the depth-first > graph has a loop in it. > > The current behavior on detecting a loop is to quit with an error message. > > The problems are: > > 1. The cycles are not easily gotten rid of when they are the result of > template mixins. > > 2. Trying to analyze the static constructors to see what the dependencies > actually are is fraught with unsolvable problems.
Surely there must be some low hanging fruit that can be exploited? Say a module has no static constructors then cant that be considered a break in the dependency cycle?
