• deadalnix (3/3) Sep 24 2014 http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31
• Timon Gehr (6/9) Sep 25 2014 "This DIP define their behavior properly, "
• deadalnix (7/19) Sep 28 2014 This is why I'm working on a DIP for identifier resolution.

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31

I've been asked to add examples of resolution for various cases 
(hint they all error out).

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 09/25/2014 06:53 AM, deadalnix wrote:
 http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31

 I've been asked to add examples of resolution for various cases (hint
 they all error out).

"This DIP define their behavior properly, "

Not really. For one thing, at the moment, the DIP doesn't really make 
clear when and how a 'dependency' occurs.

"Mixin are resolved in order, which mean the first mixin is resolved first."

What do you mean? There is no order; there is no 'first' mixin.

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 25 September 2014 at 16:49:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
 On 09/25/2014 06:53 AM, deadalnix wrote:
 http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP31

 I've been asked to add examples of resolution for various 
 cases (hint
 they all error out).

 "This DIP define their behavior properly, "

 Not really. For one thing, at the moment, the DIP doesn't 
 really make clear when and how a 'dependency' occurs.

This is why I'm working on a DIP for identifier resolution. 
Indeed, this DIP depend on identifier being resolved in a precise 
manner to get predictible results.

 "Mixin are resolved in order, which mean the first mixin is 
 resolved first."

 What do you mean? There is no order; there is no 'first' mixin.

In order in the file. This is already specified in the DIP. Yes, 
when several modules are involved, there is an hole. I have no 
idea how to plug that one.