[DGD] Re: Definition order blues

[Felix A. Croes]

Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless I miss something, your change would probably break phantasmal;
> it uses a redefined call_other to guard against calls to undefined
> functions.  My version would even make it a hard error.

This change was made long before Phantasmal came into existance.


> Maybe you could change the way you compile?
>
> Split it up into compile and link stages, like they do in C.
>[...]

Reorganizing the code would accomplish nothing.  It's not a matter
of lacking functionality; the compiler can already do what you wanted
it to do.  All that would be required to make things work as you had
expected them to, is to comment out a few lines that deal with the
special case for static functions in the auto object.

I'll go ahead with my suggested change and release a patch for it
soon.

Regards,
Dworkin