On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT), brogoff <brogoff@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>SNIP>>>
> In general, I agree that this can be a design error, but refactorings that
> are reasonable for toy code posted during an internet email discussion may not
> make sense when we're talking about files that are tens of thousands of lines
> long even in very high level languages. Scale changes everything.
> 
> -- Brian

I run across this problem all the time at work with C/C++ header
files. The difference here is C/C++ allows forward declarations which
remove the need for cyclic includes. However, it adds on maintenance
requirements for renaming structures and classes and their
declarations all over the place if things get messy.

I'm glad OCaml atleast 'seems' to have a more well defined approach to
cyclic dependencies.

-- 
Christopher A. Watford
christopher.watford@gmail.com
http://dorm.tunkeymicket.com

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners