C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Modules feedback

From: Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 23:21:09 +0100
I love the idea of IPR and I hope it will take off some day.
However, the primary use case would be consumption by tools in the same
environment as the representation was generated in.

A long as there are conditional preprocessor directives in sources, the
only way to portably represent them will remain the full unprocessed
textual content of said sources
If portable modules are something considered valuable, then conditional
directives ( token soup ), will have to be replaced by
conditionally-compiled well-formed C++ AST nodes ( static_if is one
solution to that problem )

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 23:05 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 23:58, Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I think we're eventually going to see projects wanting to not have
> > headers at all and that means that `-devel` packages will need
> > *something*. But I'm personally leaning towards it being a compiler
> > thing, not a language thing. IIRC, there was mention on Reddit of a
> > format Microsoft was working on for distilling a module down to an
> > interface description. Getting *that* as a shippable and consumable
> > format would be great.
> You mean http://www.stroustrup.com/macis09.pdf?
> Also https://github.com/GabrielDosReis/ipr
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling

Received on 2019-02-09 23:21:22