On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> What might such an industry standard approach look like? Here is a sketch
> of a design:
>
> A (set of) module description file(s) that specifies:
>
> A map from a module name to the file name for the module interface unit
> source code. A default naming convention could also be adopted, though we
> already have two competing conventions (.cppm vs .ixx).
> A set of requirements for translating the module interface unit source code
> (for one or more variations or build modes). This includes preprocessor
> information (include paths, macro definitions, macro undefinitions), and,
> potentially, language dialect requirements (specified in a generic form and,
> perhaps, with the ability to customize for specific tools).
>
> A method of specifying a path to search for module description files,
> similar to existing include paths.

I have figured that module interface unit source code would be found
on the existing include paths if no suitable compiled form is
available. This does need a naming convention, as you say.

Jason