I should add that the fact that we need
 module;
at the beginning of the global module fragment was only introduced to let a file identify itself as module file.
If we would require different suffixes, that would not have been necessary.

But correct me if I am wrong.



Am 13. April 2022 22:58:13 MESZ schrieb Nicolai Josuttis via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]>:
>What I teach about modules is compelling. Programmers like and want to
>use it.
>However, they ask how they should organize module files in practice.
>
>So far I cannot recommend a specific suffix (and I might never be able
>to do that).
>However there is one important question that IMO the standard should answer:
>*Do we **/need /**different suffixes?*
>
>I understand that a suffix discussion is only of practical value.
>But IMO the standard has to give an answer here (which has nothing to do
>with which suffixes are used).
>
>Let me elaborate that in detail:
>
>Not having a standard suffix has interesting consequences.
>So far we have header files and translation units.
>But once we know what a C++ translation unit is, we can just compile
>them all with the same compiler options or commands. Because in practice
>we have different suffixes for header and source files, we can set-up
>generic rules to compile our code.
>
>This works for any suffix, provided you know the way to tell the
>compiler that we have a C++ file here:
>(use /Tp with VC++ and -xc++ with gcc and you are done).
>
>Is this still true with modules?
>That is: Can we expect that identifying a file as C++ file is enough to
>be able to (pre) compile it as C++ file?
>
>Current compilers give different answers (AFAIK):
>
>- *gcc *says the same suffix is possible. There is not special option
>for modules.
>I can still have my own suffixes and use -xc++ though.
>
>- *VC++* currently requires different suffixes or different command-line
>arguments.
>Identifying a file as C++ file is not enough.
>For example
> - This is not enough: /Tp mymod.cppm
> - You need: /interface /Tp mymod.cppm
>
>I wonder whether the behavior of VC++ is standard conforming.
>
>I see no place in the C++ standard saying that there has to be different
>treatment of C++ source files to make them work.
>Or do we require this somewhere?
>We do not require different treatment just because we have templates,
>namespaces, or exceptions used inside.
>Therefore, I would expect that also using modules does not require
>special handling.
>(This is independent from the question whether different suffixes help
>to deal with these files).
>
>If I am right, VC++ is not standard conforming.
>
>
>In any case it would help a lot to clarify:
>Can all C++ source files expect that treating them the same way works fine?
>
>If not, we obviously need different suffixes. But then we should clearly
>say so (without necessarily saying which suffix it is).
>
>
>I hope this questions brings us a bit forward to be able teach the first
>*portable *"hello, modules" example.
>
>Thanks
>
> Nico
>
>--
>---
>Nicolai M. Josuttis
>www.josuttis.de
>+49 (0)531 / 129 88 86
>+49 (0)700 / JOSUTTIS
>
>Books:
> C++: http://cppstd20.com, http://cppstd17.com, http://cppmove.com,
> http://cppstdlib.com, http://tmplbook.com

-- 
Nico Josuttis
(sent from my mobile phone)