Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine)
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 06:02:51 -0700
Jugoslav Dujic <jdujic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right, "cyclic" or "circular". What you had is (as far as I can tell)
allowed by the standard but it will confuse most compilers -- they
expect the dependency hierarchy to be "tree-like" and cannot tell which
module should be compiled first (esp. when they're in the same source
file).
No. Cyclic module dependency is not allowed by the standard. Not only is
it a matter of which should be compiled first, but also it is possible
(easy, in fact) for a cyclic dependency to have contradictions. A
trivial example would be a two parameters m and n, with mdefined to
equal n+1 and n defined to equal m+1.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Jugoslav Dujic
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- References:
- Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Mike
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Mike
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: dpb
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Mike
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Mike
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Mike
- Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- From: Jugoslav Dujic
- Error in opening the Library module file
- Prev by Date: Re: I'm going crazy with the libraries!
- Next by Date: Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- Previous by thread: Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- Next by thread: Re: Error in opening the Library module file
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|