On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 21:38 Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 12/02/2019 15.02, JF Bastien wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:50 AM Ben Boeckel wrote:
> >> 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. 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.
> >
> > Can you elaborate on how modules are useless. You seem to say that a
> > codebase can't use TS modules if any of its dependencies (including
> > internal to that project!) aren't also modularized. I don't understand
> why
> > that would be the case.
>
> Huh? I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion...
>
> No, the problem is that libraries are distributed, and users use
> distributed libraries. In order for these libraries to be modularized,
> they have to ship something that allows BMI's to be generated.
>
> Right now, they ship headers. They can't ship BMI's because BMI's are
> not portable across compilers or quite possibly even compiler versions.
> Shipping raw source will not be an option for non-open-source libraries.
>

Uh ?
Headers are raw source. Module header units are raw sources
there is absolutely no difference

If they need to hide implementation details, module implementations units
exist.



> We need an intermediate representation that is *portable*.
>
> --
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
>