I unfortunately won't be able to attend the telecon so my thoughts
are below.


Olga Arkhipova <olgaark_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Currently, built modules (BMI) are very similar to static libraries
> from build perspective: [...]

Hm, never thought of BMIs as being similar to static libraries.

To me, static libraries supply the implementation while BMIs
supply the interface as well as the "inline implementation"
(i.e., implementation that is expected to be compiled by the
consumer, not the supplier).

>From this perspective, BMIs seems to be more like precompiled
headers than static libraries.


> If BMIs are distributed together with their sources (like modules
> for MS standard libs) build systems might want to check if the
> available BMIs are actually compatible with the current build
> settings and if not, produce a different BMI from the source

I think this is sensible, however, I wonder if a better term
would be "cached" rather than "distributed"? To make it clear
that not distributing module interface sources is generally
not going to work?