On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 04:55:57PM +0100, Martin Blapp wrote: > >What's the best way to avoid a circular use XYZ; because I have that issue > >a > >lot? > > It doesn't hurt normally. But embedded perl doesn't seem to like it. I don't > know how to check it.
Martin: this seems like a bug. If you can create a reasonably simplified test-case, then I bet p5p is interested in hearing about it. KAM: the best way to _avoid_ it is better software design. If A uses B, B uses C and C ends up use-ing A again, then some of the routines that are needed in the other module are really general "utility" routines that you need to refactor out into a completely different package, U. If you do that, you'll end up with, say, A using B and U, B using C, and C using U. No loops. You can indeed stumble into this, especially with the kind of iterative software design that perl promotes, but if you find out, it is time to take a step back and rethink the layout. Though, I must agree, having looming deadlines hanging over your head isn't exactly stimulating the "take a step back and think" scenario. -- Jan-Pieter Cornet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> !! Disc lamer: The addressee of this email is not the intended recipient. !! !! This is only a test of the echelon and data retention systems. Please !! !! archive this message indefinately to allow verification of the logs. !! _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
