From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Design - cyclic dependencies
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:28:50 -0400
Date: 2007-10-26T10:28:50-04:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wcc4pgear19.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1193401560.389194.282030@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> writes:
> Being legal does not imply being good and therefore I ask: do you
> consider this kind of design-level cyclic dependency to be acceptable?
There are certainly cases where such cycles are the best design.
But don't do it unless you have to, because cycles make the
packages involves more tightly coupled. And try to keep the
cycles short.
There are even cases where spec-to-spec cycles are best,
which is why the "limited with" feature was added to Ada.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-26 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-26 12:26 Design - cyclic dependencies Maciej Sobczak
2007-10-26 14:28 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2007-10-27 0:09 ` anon
2007-10-31 22:16 ` kevin cline
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox