C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [isocpp-ext] Can we expect that all C++ source files can have the same suffix?

From: Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:18:48 -0400
Em seg., 25 de abr. de 2022 às 13:03, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> escreveu:
> In this specific message I had the following hello.cc programs in mind:
> (1) #include <iostream>
> (2) import <iostream>;
> (3) import std;
> (4) #include <boost/smart_ptr.hpp>
> (5) import <boost/smart_ptr.hpp>;
> (6) #include <boost/regex.hpp>
> (7) import <boost/regex.hpp>;
> (8) import boost.regex;

More than half of the examples do not work "out of the box" today, you
need some package manager, and then you need to rely on the fact that
the compiler you're using knows how to find the things you installed
by default (yes, the GNU/Linux env is super convenient because of the

Here's my take: Let's identify the folks that are interested in this
"trivial build system", let's get organized as a group and then maybe
start with a paper for a "request for comments" of what the
requirements for that trivial build system would look like. And then
we have a SG15 paper of the requirements of this "trivial build
system" for the purposes of teaching, and we can ask the toolchains to
provide something satisfying those requirements.

If the implementors decide to make that a part of the compiler
executable itself, that's great, but I fail to see why it would be
problematic if gcc decided to shipt that as the `g++-trivial-build`
command line that fulfilled all those requirements.

IOW, we have the carriage miles ahead of the horses. Let's specify the
requirements for this trivial build system, and then let's allow the
toolchain implementors to decide how to fulfill those requirements.

Received on 2022-04-25 17:19:00