[Lazarus] Cycle vs. Circle errors

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

marcelo.bp schrieb:

> That got me ! I know what a circle reference is, but can anyone explain 
> with more details what a “cycle reference” is, please!

There exist several idioms:
"circular [unit] references" leading to *wrong* "circle ..."
"loop" (endless loop) in code execution or unit references
"breaking loops" meaning here "break loop in references"

"cycle" (from graph theory) is the currently accepted term for unit 
references, replaces the wrong "circle" term. But IMO "cyclic 
references" is wrong wording, should still read "circular references".

And don't confuse "graph theory" with "graphics" - a "circle" is a 
graphical element, while "circular" is a more general concept.
Unit references should form an tree, which is a special kind of an graph 
(*without* loops/cycles).

I hope that I didn't increase confusion right now ;-)


> I need a suggestion to translate this to portuguese. Usually an “invalid 
> circle” is translated as “referência circular inválida”,

Looks good to me :-)

> but right now i am confused with this new term, maybe that classic M$ 
> error “Erro de redundância cíclica” Alegre

What's the English wording of this? I'd guess "circular references", or 
"endless loop" (causing stack overflow)?

DoDi