Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   So essentially you want the compiler to know what to compile without
> > you specifying what to compile.

> Nope. I specified that you want to compile "main".

  If your program consists of one single file named "main", then it could
work.

> Look at my statement: "It's impossible to figure out from the source code 
> what other source files it depends on."

> You're intentionally misinterpreting exactly what I'm saying, which is why I 
> put a *trivial* example in a separate post. You're standing here agreeing 
> that it's impossible to look at the source code and tell what depends on 
> what, because there's not enough information in the source code to determine 
> that. And now you're mocking me for pointing it out, in spite of the fact 
> that other systems don't seem to have this problem, because other systems 
> don't have bits and pieces of library source code compiled as part of the 
> process of compiling your own source code.

  Don't forget the context. You were talking about 'make' requiring overly
complicated steps in order to automatically track the dependencies of
include files in C programs, and how you don't like that. Then, suddenly,
you come up with a "it's impossible to track dependencies by looking at
the source code only" argument. It was clear from the context that you
were talking about C in particular, as if the same (quite trivial) problem
didn't happen in more "advanced" languages.

  Of course the argument is stupid. If you don't tell the compiler which
files to compile, it cannot know which files to compile. Seems rather
self-evident. If you have the same file (with possibly different
implementations) in more than one place, you need to tell the compiler
which of those files it needs to use. Again, rather self-evident, and
completely unrelated to a specific programming language.

  So what's the point?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message