On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 10:45, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext <
ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I want a scope on that reorganization.
>

Again, the reorganization scope is limited by our willingness and ability
to break abi
At the end of the day everything will still be owned by the global module
fragment.


>
> What problems do we want to solve? Possible answers:
>
> - Finer grained access to things, either in addition to or in place of
> coarse access (for example being able to just get function, not all of
> <functional>)
>

very small modules FOR THE STANDARD LIBRARY provides little benefits


> - More logical access to things (tuple is in <tuple>, so clearly pair must
> be in <pair>... oh wait)
>

I think that's more example or too small modules


> - Freestanding concerns (separate function from parts of <functional> that
> are complicated to freestandingifyl
>

Having the free standing bits in a module seem useful
Some precedent in rust. of course non trivial because of partially free
standing things. I imagine that for the purposes of modules, having
partially free standing classes considered free standing makes sense. I
guess some exploration is needed there.


>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:39 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:33, 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?
>>
>> P0581 has some bits of rationale for providing named modules, not just
>> transitioned headers.
>> Reorganization seems to be one of them.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ext mailing list
> Ext_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ext
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/ext/2020/03/12948.php
>