On 9/29/16, 9:38 PM, "Greg Dove" <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If this does break reflection, then I can certainly accept that reflection >is probably not mainstream enough to warrant keeping things as they were, >but it would be nice to be able to keep more aggressive 'requires' >settings >here for reflection as an option, so long as remove circulars can handle >whatever comes out. Have I understood the issue correctly? IMO, we don't want the examples to require the -remove-circulars option unless it uses a third-party library that has circularities. IMO, folks often try to compile our examples from the command line and don't add the -remove-circulars option so they get an error and that isn't a good first-time-user experience. I can't think of any reason we can't have good reflection data though. IMO, the reflection subsystem should use reflection in order to prevent circularities. The data in the reflection info uses strings of qualified names instead of actual references to classes in order to break the circularities. The reflection code can convert those strings to actual references on-demand. -Alex
