No, it just reflects the reality of the platforms. Let's not try to read
the tea leaves to scry an intent when there wasn't one.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 04:29 Corentin <corentin.jabot_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 12:13, Nathan Sidwell via Modules <
> modules_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/20 5:01 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext wrote:
>> > Do we have any ABI stability concerns regarding modularizing the
>> > standard library? Certainly for strong module ownership
>> implementations,
>> > this is a concern, but for weak module ownership implementations it may
>> > be a concern too, because the mangling of internal implementation
>> > details with module linkage would change.
>> >
>> > Can implementations overcome this with special hacks for the standard
>> > library that preserve the old mangled names?
>>
>> Some pushed for a breaking ABI change in Prague. This might be their
>> opportunity!
>>
>
> In Prague, the ABI breaking of modularization were known, I can't recall
> if they were mentioned
> The existence of a weak model also tend to show that wg21 wants to
> prioritize abi stability over reliability
>
>>
>> nathan
>>
>> --
>> Nathan Sidwell
>> _______________________________________________
>> Modules mailing list
>> Modules_at_[hidden]
>> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules
>> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0823.php
>>
>