Define that package.order requires a package - #3928
Open
HansOlsson wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
…should be stored as package.mo.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
and that only packages should be stored as package.mo.
Closes #3921
Note: I generalized it to require that even package.mo should (so, there might be exceptions) be a package. We might revisit that, but I think it is a good general rule.
I agree that having package.order for a non-package would be really problematic - as there are non-constants, equations etc that must be ordered.
Having package.mo for a non-package would to me only make sense for a top-level class where you want to store resources as if it were a package, and in that case having sub-classes (and especially sub-classes stored externally) doesn't really make sense.