C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] [Ext] Modules and tooling: Resolving module import declarations

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 17:09:40 +0000
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Nathan Sidwell
| Sent: Friday, August 31, 2018 4:53 AM
| To: Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>; WG21
| Tooling Study Group SG15 <tooling_at_[hidden]>
| Cc: C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>
| Subject: Re: [Ext] [Tooling] Modules and tooling: Resolving module import
| declarations
| On 08/31/2018 07:09 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
| > Message-ID: <boris.20180831104601_at_[hidden]>
| >
| > Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> writes:
| >> 2. A method of specifying a path to search for module description
| >> files, similar to existing include paths.
| >
| > I would argue against any kind of "search paths" approach (whether for
| > modules or description files themselves). We've used them for includes
| > and I think it has proven to be brittle (I am talking about the "header
| > doesn't exist where you expect it to exist but the compiler found you
| > another one" kind of situtions) and not toolable (where shoudl I generate
| > this non-existent header?)
| A search path seems the obvious choice, because of the similarity to
| include paths. It is the route I originally went down. It's a trap! As
| Boris says, it's brittle. It continues the performance problems of
| searching a bunch of filesystem locations for each import.

Exactly! Not mentioning the correctness problems.

| I abandoned that approach for an interface allowing the compiler to be
| agnostic, and other tools to plug into that. Expect a paper for San Diego.


-- Gaby

Received on 2018-08-31 19:09:43