If each implementation does something different regarding modules and filenames, then C++ will die a slow painful death. If we can't have implementations agree on a singular thing to do, that is going to fragment the community further, cause headaches, and waste hundreds of hours of developer time trying to get everything to work the same. I do not trust vendors to do the right thing and work together outside of the standard.

Furthermore, while C# permits names and modules not being the same, this isn't as much of an issue given that a module is also a namespace (which is orthogonal to modules in C++), they have partial classes (which we do not), and they don't have separate interface and implementation files. I reckon if C# had to deal with some of the issues we are, it would be less popular. 😉

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 3, 2019 7:41 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> - 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.
>
> I keep reading this. The opposite is just true as well. For example, there are lot of experience with C# out there and their productivity hasn’t gotten down because of it.
>
> Lost in all this brouhaha is the fact that the IS does not preclude a trivial mapping: your implementation will document what it wants.
>
> From: tooling-bounces_at_[hidden] <tooling-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Corentin
> Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2019 6:00 PM
> To: WG21 Tooling Study Group SG15 <tooling_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [Tooling] SG15 Why do we need module name to file name mapping
>
> 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](https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.open-std.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftooling&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C3adf39f0c683427fb84108d68a447a81%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636848424056005598&sdata=NzK37Ir7HzGpduYGXcUZtsC5u8N0DzOVxpdWUnIsIU0%3D&reserved=0)