C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: P2581R0: Specifying the Interoperability of Binary Module Interface Files

From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 15:33:48 -0400
On 5/9/22 13:43, Gabriel Dos Reis via SG15 wrote:
> [Daniel]
>> Yes. But the use of the term "implementation" creates a false symmetry
>> with the "Module Implementation Units".
> Exactly!
> When ordinary programmers hear "interface" and "implementation", the symmetry pops up right there, and most of the time they don't arrive at the same place as us WG21 experts.
> If we talk about "external", then "internal" is a natural opposite. Of course, "non-external" is another candidate, but the inevitable double negatives are best left for us, WG21 experts.

While compelling, we don't call partitions that begin 'export module
Foo:Baz' 'external partitions', we call them 'interface partitions'.
Should we also consider renaming them to make the external/internal
symmetry clearer? That would also break the link people have with
'interface units' and 'interface partitions'.


Nathan Sidwell

Received on 2022-05-09 19:33:50