On 17/06/2019 13.45, Olga Arkhipova via SG15 wrote:
> I submitted the paper for BMI reuse.
> https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P1788R0.pdf
>
> I believe I still can change it if somebody wants to comment on it.

I find your motivation (at least the "why reuse" part, but actually
that's only part of the paper) unconvincing. The first point in
particular; if I am modifying a.cpp, I don't need to rebuild the BMI's
that a.cpp depends on, whereas I *always*¹ need to rebuild the BMI for
a.cpp with or without reusable BMI's.

(¹ Pedantically, it depends on if what was changed affects the BMI or
not. I'm not sure if IDE's will become "smart enough" to make this
determination.)

That's not to say there *isn't* motivation. In fact, I think you are
missing the *biggest* motivation, which is, if I can reuse a library's
BMI's, then the many consumers of that library don't all have to build
their own copies. Maybe you are trying to say this with your second
point, but it isn't clear that you are talking about BMI's of *external*
libraries, as opposed to those the project itself generates.

Just some thoughts... again, not trying to knock the paper (which I
think is important), just offer how you might improve how you present
the "why reuse" section.

-- 
Matthew