C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG15] module source suffixes

From: Matthew Woehlke <mwoehlke.floss_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:42:00 -0400
Okay... I'm going to take a step back here.

First off, my understanding of Nathan's original post was as an attempt
to establish what naming conventions we (SG15) plan to recommend. I also
assumed this was intended to be part of the larger recommendations
document we are working toward.

Is this accurate? Does SG15 consider it important that sources exporting
things have distinctive file names? Does SG15 consider it important to
express an official opinion on what those conventions should be?

If the answers are "no", then let's just stop, because I don't care what
some communities recommend. I only care what *SG15/WG21* recommends.

If the answers are "yes"... well, then, the question was raised *why* we
need distinctive file names. So far, the answer I've seen to that (see
Olga's messages) is "because VS".

So, my questions are:

- Are these implementation concerns peculiar to VS, or are they
inherent, and thus likely to affect other tools and probably build
systems as well?

- If they are inherent, what is their impact? It is hard to believe that
only VS will have issues. Is there any other aspect of modules' design
that should be reconsidered as a result?

- If they are *not* inherent, do we (that is, SG15) nevertheless intend
to prescribe naming conventions for the sake of one tool, which
presumably could be altered to not need such conventions?


Received on 2019-08-28 15:44:06