Case - class from required module is not available

[David Holmes]

On 28/03/2012 6:31 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
> On 28/03/2012 02:48, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 28/03/2012 3:53 AM, Mandy Chung wrote:
>>> This is an interesting scenario - module c is linked with module b only
>>> whereas module d is linked with module a only.
>>
>> So is that a bug or a feature? Given b will not be able to find a<1.0,
>> but a1.0 is already loaded, is it then necessary that b not be linked
>> to d?
> Right, a at 1.0 and b at 1.0 can't be the same configuration because of the
> constraint so the answer for d has to be {d at 1.0, a at 1.0} or {d at 1.0,
> b at 1.0}. There is code in the resolver that ensures that the dependencies
> are examined in order so I assume this is why {d at 1.0, a at 1.0} is chosen.
> If d's dependencies are reversed then it will generate the other answer.
> With c then the answer has to be {c at 1.0, b at 1.0}.

Obviously there's a lot of detailed semantics here that I'm not clear 
on. Is this just an artifact of the current implementation strategy or a 
hard limitation in the overall model. My thinking is that b could still 
be made available to d as long as b's attempts to access anything in "a" 
give a "module not found" exception. But that all depends on how things 
are actually implemented.

Just curious.

Thanks,
David

> -Alan.
>
>