C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG15] [isocpp-ext] [isocpp-modules] Modularization of the standard library and ABI stability

From: Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 22:42:41 -0400
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:01 PM David Stone via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]>

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 AM Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via
> Modules <modules_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As I recall, we did not have consensus to evolve the ABI at Prague.
> As a reminder, these were the polls:
> [...]
> 3. From now on, we should consider incremental ABI for every C++ release
> 98 35 6 0 2
> Consensus

Could someone who was there, please tell me what this poll's text means?
What does "consider incremental ABI" mean?


P.S. — Back on the question of "how should a modularized STL look,"
personally I think that's an area that should be pioneered by practitioners
— library-writers and library vendors — not by ISO on paper. Are the
libstdc++ and libc++ communities actually investing in an attempt to
deliver a modular STL? If they're not, is it just for lack of manpower? Is
any third party currently working on a modular STL, the way we saw third
parties working on `fmt` and `range-v3` and ASIO and Boost?

Received on 2020-03-11 21:45:42