Stephen Pair wrote:

> I was just thinking that you would only need to gather up everything
> that needed to be activated, and activate it in an order that it
> wouldn't break.  However, fixing superclass references in retrospect
> might be more robust and easier to implement.

The problem is that to "gather" it you file it in, you can't get a class
definition into the image without creating the class object (or doing a
*lot* of work to analyze the code before executing it).

> So, if I understand correctly, co-dependence will be allowed (maybe this
> has been covered before, I can't remember)?


The best thing would be not to allow it--clean dependencies is what you
really want--but for legacy reasons it needs to be handled to some extent.

Henrik