Thread overview
import bug
Sep 15, 2007
BCS
Sep 15, 2007
Bill Baxter
Sep 15, 2007
BCS
Sep 15, 2007
Brad Roberts
Sep 15, 2007
BCS
Sep 15, 2007
Brad Roberts
Sep 15, 2007
BCS
September 15, 2007
--module 1---
private import std.cstream;
void main(){}
-- module 2 --
import std.stdio;
void B()
{
	std.file.read(__FILE__); }
---

if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits working


September 15, 2007
BCS wrote:
> --module 1---
> private import std.cstream;
> void main(){}
> -- module 2 --
> import std.stdio;
> void B()
> {
>     std.file.read(__FILE__); }
> ---
> 
> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits working

What do you mean quits working?  Fails to compile, or link, or execute properly?

--bb
September 15, 2007
BCS wrote:
> --module 1---
> private import std.cstream;
> void main(){}
> -- module 2 --
> import std.stdio;
> void B()
> {
>     std.file.read(__FILE__); }
> ---
> 
> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits working
> 

Your examples are somewhat incomplete, but I strongly suspect they're the same as one of these old bugs:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=314

Later,
Brad
September 15, 2007
Reply to Bill,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> --module 1---
>> private import std.cstream;
>> void main(){}
>> -- module 2 --
>> import std.stdio;
>> void B()
>> {
>> std.file.read(__FILE__); }
>> ---
>> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits
>> working
>> 
> What do you mean quits working?  Fails to compile, or link, or execute
> properly?
> 
> --bb
> 

Fails to compile:

b.d(4): Error: undefined identifier package std.file


September 15, 2007
Reply to Brad,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> --module 1---
>> private import std.cstream;
>> void main(){}
>> -- module 2 --
>> import std.stdio;
>> void B()
>> {
>> std.file.read(__FILE__); }
>> ---
>> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits
>> working
>> 
> Your examples are somewhat incomplete, but I strongly suspect they're
> the same as one of these old bugs:
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=314
> Later,
> Brad

It is slightly different in that module 2 doesn't import module 1. 

If you compile them together (dmd mod1.d mod2.d) it works. By it's self though (dmd mod2.d -c), module 2 doesn't work.


September 15, 2007
BCS wrote:
> Reply to Brad,
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>>
>>> --module 1---
>>> private import std.cstream;
>>> void main(){}
>>> -- module 2 --
>>> import std.stdio;
>>> void B()
>>> {
>>> std.file.read(__FILE__); }
>>> ---
>>> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2 quits
>>> working
>>>
>> Your examples are somewhat incomplete, but I strongly suspect they're
>> the same as one of these old bugs:
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=314
>> Later,
>> Brad
> 
> It is slightly different in that module 2 doesn't import module 1.
> If you compile them together (dmd mod1.d mod2.d) it works. By it's self though (dmd mod2.d -c), module 2 doesn't work.

Sounds like a new one, though potentially related.  Would you put together a bug report with the repro steps.

September 15, 2007
Reply to Brad,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Brad,
>> 
>>> BCS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> --module 1---
>>>> private import std.cstream;
>>>> void main(){}
>>>> -- module 2 --
>>>> import std.stdio;
>>>> void B()
>>>> {
>>>> std.file.read(__FILE__); }
>>>> ---
>>>> if the import in module 1 is removed std.file.read in module 2
>>>> quits
>>>> working
>>> Your examples are somewhat incomplete, but I strongly suspect
>>> they're the same as one of these old bugs:
>>> 
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=313
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=314
>>> Later,
>>> Brad
>> It is slightly different in that module 2 doesn't import module 1.
>> If you compile them together (dmd mod1.d mod2.d) it works. By it's
>> self
>> though (dmd mod2.d -c), module 2 doesn't work.
> Sounds like a new one, though potentially related.  Would you put
> together a bug report with the repro steps.
> 

OK