The first sentence rom P0581:

> With recent progress made on the ‘module’ language feature, it is long
overdue that we start a conversation around uses of modules in the
standard library.

My question is, simply, "why?"

Let's quantify what we hope to achieve and what the scope of the work is,
as I tried to do two posts ago.

Is this a reorganization or not?

If yes, is redefining the freestanding library in scope?

If it is a reorganization and redefining the freestanding library isn't in
scope, does that mean we don't want to "fix" freestanding?

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:32 Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <
brycelelbach_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I wrote a paper that in large part was a response to P0581, so yes, I've
> read it a few times.
>
> https://wg21.link/P1453
>
> It sounded like you were trying to make a point. Can you be clearer about
> what that point was?
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:25 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:16, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
>> <ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > From a users perspective, having STL modules would speed up
>> compilation times immensely
>> >
>> > As I said in my email, standard library headers are already importable
>> in C++20. So your implementation can already replace #include <vector> with
>> import <vector>;
>> >
>> > I don't know that we can really do that much more than that; we could
>> have an import std.vector, but it sounds like (0) std::vector would have to
>> remain in the global module and (1) standard library implementation details
>> would probably have to remain in the global module as well.
>> >
>> > TL;DR the use case you described is already covered in C++20.
>>
>> I wonder whether the people commenting on this thread have read
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0581r1.pdf.
>>
>