search for: userfacinga

...-- Change your thoughts and you change the world. --Dr. Norman Vincent Peale > On Apr 8, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Gabriel Becker <gmbecker at ucdavis.edu> wrote: > > Another, perhaps slightly off the wall reframing of the 3-package > possibility: > > Have packages B, a, and UserFacingA, as follows > > *a* contains all the functionality in your A package that > *does not depend on B* > *B* *imports from* *a* and is essentially unchanged > *UserFacingA* *Depends* on *a* and *imports from* *B*, it implements all > functionality from your package A that *does depen...

Another, perhaps slightly off the wall reframing of the 3-package possibility: Have packages B, a, and UserFacingA, as follows *a* contains all the functionality in your A package that *does not depend on B* *B* *imports from* *a* and is essentially unchanged *UserFacingA* *Depends* on *a* and *imports from* *B*, it implements all functionality from your package A that *does depend on* *B*, and gets the rest f...

Thanks all, I don't know either (for the moment). It's all in the design phase still. Generally, I would also like to keep specific functions in specific packages, if at all possible. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Mark van der Loo <mark.vanderloo at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I'm not saying that Dmitri _should_ do it. I merely mention it as an > option that I think is

...; Subject: Re: [Rd] (no) circular dependency Message-ID: <CADwqtCP9Cmo6xy1zw86=k-SZckUUM5n_0qL8HbwcG5SyRTCQrw at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Another, perhaps slightly off the wall reframing of the 3-package possibility: Have packages B, a, and UserFacingA, as follows *a* contains all the functionality in your A package that *does not depend on B* *B* *imports from* *a* and is essentially unchanged *UserFacingA* *Depends* on *a* and *imports from* *B*, it implements all functionality from your package A that *does depend on* *B*, and gets the rest f...