[DGD] Recursion in recompile(), is this correct?

[Noah Gibbs]

--- Robert Forshaw <iouswuoibev at hotmail.com> wrote:
> If this is true then it's very strange behaviour!

  DGD mostly lets you do your own recompile behavior. 
We consider that a feature around here.  At least, I
definitely do.  But it means that there are a lot of
standard cases where a recompile would be reasonable
that DGD gives you no notification of that fact...  It
just tells you what actually happened and lets you
figure out that it's time for a recompile.

  Bart mentioned the case where you recompile a
library and DGD doesn't notify all the children. 
That's a good example.  It's because DGD gives *you*
the ability to track the children, and you can notify
them yourself, if you care.

  This takes more code.  However, the code is already
out there (mine, Geir Harald Hansen's).  Anybody who
complains that DGD requires too much code to do this,
then refuses to use somebody's pre-written version,
gets about the amount of sympathy they deserve :-)

> I
> don't see how it would 
> cause an error though.

  The object you're recompiling has child objects.  So
unless your version of destruct_object() knows that
and destructs it before recompiling, you get an error.
 That's because you can't directly recompile an object
with child objects.  You have to destruct it first.

  There's another example of a case where you'd like
to have an object manager tracking this stuff :-)



=====
------
noah_gibbs at yahoo.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd