Note that MSVC has been experimenting with modular views of the standard library since late 2015, and the paper I cited earlier was based on that experiment.

-- Gaby
________________________________
From: Ext <ext-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Arthur O'Dwyer via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 7:42:41 PM
To: Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>; Michael Spencer via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15_at_[hidden]>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext_at_[hidden]>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [isocpp-modules] Modularization of the standard library and ABI stability

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:01 PM David Stone via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]<mailto:ext_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 AM Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Modules <modules_at_[hidden]<mailto: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

SF F N A SA
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?

–Arthur

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?