Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 22:29:55 +0000
* I want a scope on that reorganization.
Please clarify the kind of “scope of reorganization” that isn’t already contained in that paper.
-- Gaby
From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 2:45 AM
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]il.com>
Cc: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach_at_[hidden]>; Ben Boeckel via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>; Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>; Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc <nagy-egri.mate_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [SG15] Modularization of the standard library andABI stability
I want a scope on that reorganization.
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>)
- More logical access to things (tuple is in <tuple>, so clearly pair must be in <pair>... oh wait)
- Freestanding concerns (separate function from parts of <functional> that are complicated to freestandingifyl
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:39 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]<mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:33, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
<brycelelbach_at_[hidden]<mailto: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<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwg21.link%2FP1453&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C88ba855406ae4b37f27008d7c40e9514%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193439217964614&sdata=78WaFZ0krTG72cmlSn%2BcxGIKhaJHDrNuu%2Bf9kbk0Bzg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 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.
Please clarify the kind of “scope of reorganization” that isn’t already contained in that paper.
-- Gaby
From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 2:45 AM
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]il.com>
Cc: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach_at_[hidden]>; Ben Boeckel via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>; Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>; Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc <nagy-egri.mate_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [SG15] Modularization of the standard library andABI stability
I want a scope on that reorganization.
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>)
- More logical access to things (tuple is in <tuple>, so clearly pair must be in <pair>... oh wait)
- Freestanding concerns (separate function from parts of <functional> that are complicated to freestandingifyl
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:39 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]<mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:33, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
<brycelelbach_at_[hidden]<mailto: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<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwg21.link%2FP1453&data=02%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C88ba855406ae4b37f27008d7c40e9514%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637193439217964614&sdata=78WaFZ0krTG72cmlSn%2BcxGIKhaJHDrNuu%2Bf9kbk0Bzg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 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.
Received on 2020-03-09 17:32:42