On 08.09.2011 17:26, Christian Kamm wrote:
Timon Gehr wrote:
I am strongly in favor of disallowing any cases where mixin declarations
shadow declarations that were used to compute mixin declarations in a
scope that allows forward references.
Any thoughts on this?
Order-of-static-evaluation problems are not limited to mixins:
static if (!is(typeof(foo)) enum bar = 1;
static if (!is(typeof(bar)) enum foo = 1;
with the way dmd handles forward references, this can go either way
depending on which static if gets evaluated first. D's wish that 'the order
of declarations does not matter' is impossible to fulfill due to mixins and
static if.
They are special because they can alter the symbol table based on the
contents of the symbol table.
I think you could get away with defining that 'the order of declarations
does not matter - except for static if and mixin which always get evaluated
in lexical order'. I'm not sure how much work it'd be to make dmd behave
that way. It probably wouldn't be worthwile.
I prefer: The order of declarations NEVER matters, and the above code is
illegal. It's easy to implement.
