On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 22:33, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 7/10/19 3:28 PM, Ville Voutilainen via SG15 wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 22:26, Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> The situation arises if the implementation assumes imported headers are importable (aka import <foo> implies foo is importable).
> >> Are we saying this is not a good implementation strategy?
> >>
> >> I would say that such an implementation strategy is not valid given the existing wording (and my understanding of the intent of the wording from various discussions).
> > I disagree with that. The set of importable headers is implementation
> > defined to be "every header everywhere" in that strategy, and the
> > wording doesn't
> > disallow it.
>
> That implementation strategy will mis-compile or reject well-formed code
> like the following (assuming <foo> is an importable header, in some
> cases, depending on the contents of <foo>). That is why I believe it to
> be invalid.
>
> #include <foo>
> import <foo>;

Hmm.. well, yeah, if the strategy is, for the set of importable
headers, "every header everywhere", then that's again just a sequence
of two imports.