On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 14:32 +0100, Jürg Billeter wrote: > On Sun, 2009-01-11 at 10:52 -0500, Yu Feng wrote: > > Therefore my opinion on the cycles is that there should not be > > unsolvable typedef cycles ( with .h, -priv.h and .c) in a properly > > designed program, because these cycles represents solid cycles in your > > Class atlas; which (as I can remember) should be avoided as possible. If > > one is detected, VALA should throw an error -- even if vala can handle > > it; it should throw an warning for this poor design. > > While some cycles between classes may be a sign of poor design, this is > certainly not always the case. You often have loosely coupled components > (usually no cycle) but a few strongly coupled classes per component (can > contain a cycle) in well designed libraries. We should really try to > help the developer here. I don't think that possible C header cycles are > a good indication for the quality of a library. > I get your points. Thanks!
Yu > Jürg > _______________________________________________ Vala-list mailing list Vala-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list