4 May
2005
4 May
'05
6:26 a.m.
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
I'm afraid so, as of today. It's the kind of thing that could get fixed if enough people wanted it, but at the moment it's pretty low on the list.
Mutual dependent classes in separate modules are a consequence of rigorously defining exactly one class or one principal type per module. In my opinion this is a very clean approach, but many library writers seems to dislike it. Maybe they dislike it because they risk mutual dependent modules ...