Re: buildable interface testers error

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:

> We could check that the interface is actually registered before  
> calling _ADD_INTERFACE, as in the attached patch.  Does this make  
> sense?  muppet?

The obvious scenario that comes to mind is a hosed registration  
order.  Is there any value in worrying about deferred initialization?   
I don't think so, as you're typically doing instantiation after  
initialization has finished, but we have ways of breaking that  
assumption.

But i think the warning is a good idea.  It gives the author a hint  
that the initialization order may be hosed.


--
Diane, ten-oh-three, Great Northern Hotel.
Sheriff Truman and I have just been with the one-armed man, or what's  
left of him.
In another time, another culture, he may have been a seer, or a shaman  
priest, but in our world, he's a shoe salesman, and lives among the  
shadows.
-- Special Agent Dale Cooper