[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs
From: |
Thien-Thi Nguyen |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs |
Date: |
24 Nov 2004 05:53:25 -0500 |
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
[definitions]
my head is already swimming because "dependent", "dependency" and
"dependence" all are very subtly different and have different
meanings in different contexts.
i like the term "upstream" and "downstream" because a moment's
thought in comparison w/ the real-world (physical) motion of water
shows what is upstream affects what is downstream, but not the
other way around.
unfortunately, i have no suggestion on how to adapt these terms to
things that are mutually-dependent.
as for the rest of the text, IIUC you are proposing a way to
explicitly distguish direct from indirect. how about also
distiguishing between "fatal-indirect" and "non-fatal-indirect"?
(i presume lack of direct is always fatal.)
thi