On 29 July 2013 13:46, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2013 um 14:36 schrieb Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com>:
>
>> Cool! I'm just curious as to how you might phrase the "executive
>> summary" of the maps. They don't, for instance, show the massive
>> amount of circularity between, say, System, Collections, Kernel,
>> Network and so on. The maps look much more like how I'd _like_ the
>> dependencies to be.
>
>
> note that I used tred to figure out transitive dependencies,
> but it does not work too well with circular dependencies;
> when tred encounters circles, the outcome is undefined with respect
> to where the circles is actually shown.
>
> tred(1):
>         If a graph has cycles, its transitive reduction is not uniquely defined. In this case tred emits a warning.
>
> So we actually only get meaningful information once all circles are removed.

Ah, that would explain a lot.

> IMHO we should start with Collection and make it depend on 'Nothing',
> or the other way round, make Collection depend on Kernel but Kernel depend
> on nothing.

I would very much like to have Kernel depend on nothing, but we're a
long way from being able to do that. Collections _can't_ depend on
nothing, because it must at the least depend on things like Object and
Class, which properly belong in Kernel.

frank

> Best
>         -Tobias
>
>
>