We don't need it and a lot of us believe we need to not have it.
The price for this level of indirection, as you say is quite high on
tooling. the benefits un-existant.

The evolution working group and the authors of the module proposal seem
afraid to over specify - while SG-15 thinks
leaving things as they are will lead for decades of pain. At least, I
certainly think so.

We have a lot of experience in other languages for deterministic and
direct name -> file mapping, very little for having the module name solely
in the source.


As for name collision... It's not a problem. It would even be a good thing
to make sure not to have duplicated file names:
Module identifier needs to be unique in a program, so asking the same of
files is reasonable.





On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 02:20 Scott Wardle <swardle_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have been looking for some information why do we need a level of
> indirection from module name to module interface file name. Why are
> modules names need a different system then header names.
>
> I have hear that Microsoft was having some problems with name collision.
> Is there more concrete information about the problem that Microsoft or
> other companies were having?
>
> If you have a name collision today with headers we would just make another
> library that wraps one of the two colliding headers. I name the public
> header of this new library something different and problem solved.
>
> So I don’t understand why are we paying for this level of indirection but
> I probably just don’t understand the problem.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
>