On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 11:44 AM Gabriel Dos Reis via Modules <
modules_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 11, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Boris Kolpackov <boris_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> How often do you expect the boost headers to change?
> >
> > What if it's not Boost but my own headers?
> >
> > It seems there is still an assumption that header modules
> > will only be used for legacy/system stuff (even though
> > "legacy" has been dropped from their name).
>
> That is indeed the primary purpose of the feature.
>
> > But I don't
> > see a reason why someone would not want to use them for
> > own, actively-developed headers to speed up compilation
> > in cases where switching to "real" modules is not (yet)
> > possible (for example, because one has to support older
> > compilers).
>
> That still falls under the “transition” banner.
>

They are the only way to provide an API that includes macros (which are
still a first-class non-deprecated feature of c++). Therefore I expect them
to continue to exist far into the future, even for codebases that cut over
completely to modules and remove every #include.



> — Gaby
>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Modules mailing list
> Modules_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: http://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2019/04/0384.php
>