RE: Fatal error 11: Segmentation Fault

[Drew Adams]

> > > And here you see the price you pay for your
> > > above decision [...]
> 
> > ... what approaches are there, again?
> 
> I was talking about every piece of code (conditionally) pulling
> in its dependencies (with require, e.g.). This makes it much
> easier to skip parts without the whole construction breaking
> down. But hey -- it's just an offer. You are not forced to do
> it this way :-D

I tried suggesting the same thing.  Imagine...

You're going on vacation.  You make a list
of what you need to bring.  For each thing
you think of you decide to list not only that
thing but also each of its parts.

For your car you list not only "car" but also
tires, engine, transmission, radio...

Why?  Because you think it's easier somehow.
Because you can loop over your checklist...

Your car already requires its tires (at least
it should!).  Leaving your car home should
automatically leave your tires home.

But if you list each bit separately then sure,
if you try to bring your car _without_ the
tires there'll be a problem because it thinks
it needs them (and it does).

This is why we have things like `require' -
they keep track of dependencies for us.

List only the things _you_ need to bring.
Make sure that things that require other
things know that they require them, so
_they_ take care of bringing whatever
_they_ need, saving you the bother.

Then if you leave something home none of
the things you bring with you will holler.