[Ben]
> `CXX_MODULES`: for any TU which uses `export` (module or partition)
  
Can that be CXX_MODULES_INTERFACES instead?

> Would `CXX_MODULE_HEADER_UNITS` be more acceptable?

Yes.

Thanks!

-- Gaby


-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Boeckel <ben.boeckel_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 7:32 AM
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Cc: sg15_at_[hidden]; Daniel Ruoso <daniel_at_[hidden]>; Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [SG15] P2581R0: Specifying the Interoperability of Binary Module Interface Files

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 12:48:24 +0000, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I have a lot to say in this thread, but a request for the CMake folks:
>
> > CXX_MODULE_HEADERS
>
> Please, can we avoid "module headers" or "header modules" as terminology in the community?
> We've settled on "header units". If we need something more than that, please let's work on it.

There are currently three names used:

  - `CXX_MODULES`: for any TU which uses `export` (module or partition)
  - `CXX_MODULE_INTERNAL_PARTITIONS`: for any TU which is a partition
    without `export` and not an implementation unit (needs to be
    separate because of the `-internalPartition` flag is needed during
    scanning; it wouldn't be that important if the non-standard MSVC
    extention needed the flag and this one did not)
  - `CXX_MODULE_HEADERS`: for header units

Would `CXX_MODULE_HEADER_UNITS` be more acceptable? Are the other names
fine? FWIW, further bikeshedding can go here to avoid cluttering the
list:

    https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitlab.kitware.com%2Fcmake%2Fcmake%2F-%2Fmerge_requests%2F7224&amp;data=05%7C01%7Cgdr%40microsoft.com%7C0a54507def31498c8ed008da2d119456%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637871850792071283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=cqDKc7MMNixANZLSgqs%2FP0xVvRGDUPf9jO003S1kHB8%3D&amp;reserved=0

We can also move to Discourse if it gets too long on GitLab.

--Ben