C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG15] module source suffixes

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 18:55:29 +0000

| -----Original Message-----
| From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss_at_gmail.com>
| Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 9:59 AM
| To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>; sg15_at_lists.isocpp.org; Olga
| Arkhipova <olgaark_at_microsoft.com>
| Subject: Re: [SG15] module source suffixes
| On 28/08/2019 00.55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > [...]
| > | Someone is wrong here.
| >
| > Yes 😊
| >
| > You are trying to prescribe here how VS IDE should work internally.
| Please take a step back from "trying to protect your baby"

I am no trying to protect my baby. I am just politely reminding you that you seem to be too certain when you don't have a 1/100000th of the facts concerning VS and this is not the place to litigate that.

| and re-read
| my previous message, noting in particular that I did not state *which*
| of the two competing possibilities I believe to be correct. In fact, I
| am especially concerned because the VS claim may be *right*.

Can you remind me again where we have the claim that VS may be right?

| The VS devs claim that VS cannot be better implemented; that it is
| impossible to achieve reasonable performance without knowing *from the
| file name* if a source exports stuff.

Really? Please offer evidence.

| What I *don't* see is how this can be unique to VS. If true, it should
| be true for *every* IDE, and very probably for build systems as well. If
| not true, it implies that VS could be implemented in a way that wouldn't
| have this problem, and that therefore it doesn't make sense to codify
| such a restriction in the standard.

Did you consider the possibility that you are dealing with a strawman you made up?

| Other involved parties don't believe this to be an issue.

Others may believe that something may not be a problem for *them*, for sure. What are the basis to proclaim that this cannot possibly be an issue for VS?

| So... is VS
| aware of something that the rest of us haven't noticed yet?

Yes: VS's internal architecture and workflow.

| (Entirely
| possible; VS has a large development team that is strongly motivated
| toward early adoption compared to other IDE developers.)
Very much so, but that isn't the only constraint that VS has.

| Or is VS trying
| to dictate an unnecessary restriction on how modules work?

Can you remind me again what VS is trying to dictate?
| *I don't know*.

That may be so, but you seem to be making strong claims.

| I would like to know. I would like for us to have a
| better handle than I feel like we do currently on which of these is
| correct, so that we are making a properly informed decision on this topic.

Again, please remind me of what VS is trying to dictate to you.

| *If*, in fact, there is no technical reason why an IDE cannot be made
| efficient without the standard mandating a special file name convention
| for sources with exports, then yes, I am *perfectly* happy for the
| standard to dictate that implementations must meet certain "quality"
| standards. We've been doing that for decades.

Can you remind me again where VS is saying the standard must mandate a special file name convention?

| All that said, I'm far from convinced that we (WG21) should be dictating
| this sort of thing even if it *is* a legitimate problem.

Right. Again, please let me know where VS is saying the standard must mandate a file naming.

| It feels more
| like a QoI issue. Nothing is stopping VS from making its own
| recommendations, or WG21 from adopting a "wait and see" attitude to
| allow more real world experience before codifying something.

Motherhood and applepie. Please consider my requests above so we can make progress.

-- Gaby

Received on 2019-08-28 13:57:33