C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] [isocpp-lib-ext] [Ext] Modules and tooling: Resolving module import declarations

From: Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:56:11 -0500
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:16 PM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 09/07/2018 06:38 PM, Loïc Joly wrote:
> >
> > For closed-source library, it may not even be an option, but a
> > requirement. And I expect some of those library writers might be very
> > happy if they could avoid delivering headers, but only a collection of
> > pre-compiled module interfaces for the compilers they support.
> This is what I fear. If library providers were to do that, tools that
> are unable to consume the provided module artifacts would be unable to
> parse any source code that has a module interface dependency on those
> libraries. Library providers that do this are not just restricting what
> compilers their customers can use, they are restricting what tools their
> customers can use on the customer's own code (at least the subset of it
> that has a module interface dependency on the library). I would
> consider this a pretty user hostile thing to do. I think we should make
> it as easy as possible for library providers to enable their modular
> library to work with as wide a range of tools as possible.

Such library providers tend to be perfectly happy to only support certain
tools for the libraries they distribute. Yes, it does restrict what users
can do. But that's not usually a problem for their audience. The common
case is where it's a closed platform with a single set of, usually
proprietary, tools for it. For example in console game development.

-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Received on 2018-09-08 04:56:24