On 24/05/2023 08.45, 许传奇(夜灯) via SG15 wrote:
> Thanks for your explanation. Your words are self-contained. But I can't see it from [module.import]p5. I don't feel the semantics are stated clearly. If it is the intention, I strongly feel we need to reword it.

Any specific suggestions here?

Note that this says "implementation-defined, with a minimum supported set".

So, your first go-to point to determine that set is your vendor documentation,
not the standard.

Also note that header units are intended as a transitional feature, thus
giving a bit more leeway to the implementation in that area might be a
good idea.

> And the general headers were meant to be importable although we doesn't define it well-formed in the standard. But given your interpretation, the usage of header units become less usable.

Header units do not depend on the preprocessor state at
the location where the "import" appears.

If that's not what you thought the feature would deliver, please
review the papers leading to the current design in the standard,
and feel free to submit a paper seeking improvements to EWG.

Jens