C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Modules feedback

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 20:26:37 +0000
| -----Original Message-----
| From: tooling-bounces_at_open-std.org <tooling-bounces_at_open-std.org> On
| Behalf Of Ben Boeckel
| Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:50 AM
| To: WG21 Tooling Study Group SG15 <tooling_at_[hidden]g>
| Cc: michael_spencer_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [Tooling] Modules feedback
| On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 19:32:45 +0000, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > IPR isn’t for distribution.
| OK. Substitute whatever format we end up using for distribution of
| modules within RPM, DPKG, vcpkg, ports, etc. It just can't be "nothing"
| because otherwise modules are effectively only useful in monorepo
| build-the-world-from-scratch projects.

Also agree that is not the expected scenario.
I do expect build artefacts such as module metadata (generated during the build) to be installed alongside the source file of the module interface units (that would be the equivalent of headers).

| Which is not how C++ works today
| in the realm of FOSS. And it is best if that format is compatible
| between otherwise-compatible compilers too.

Again, agree. I just wanted to distinguish a format for distributing C++ from what is needed for modules, as "distribution" tends to activate lot of assumptions and expectations from various people.

-- Gaby

Received on 2019-02-12 21:26:42