On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 09:16, Boris Kolpackov <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Ville Voutilainen via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > I would hesitate to suggest or leave room for the impression that
> > modules were standardized without adequate tooling consideration.
> > Furthermore, some new language facilities just do have adoption
> > challenges, that's sometimes the nature of the beast. The
> > tooling-feedback from e.g. build system developers hasn't thus far
> > revealed a need to do major design surgery to modules, as far as I
> > have understood.
>
> To add to what Ben said, there is a growing sentiment in the community
> that header units are basically unimplementable and should just be
> dropped.

Fascinating. There was a time when they were OMDB-insisted to be a
must-have, and
were said to be the bee's knees and the only form of modules that can
ever work, and
named modules were said to be the polar opposite of that and
completely pointless,
by some parties involved. It's truly fascinating if we then end up in
a situation
where we have named modules with strong ownership and don't bother
with importable
headers. I mean, that was a likely outcome anyway, the only unclear
thing was what
the migration path to that point will be. :P

I do wonder whether these concerns about modules actually translate to
contracts, and to what
extent. Then again, they may well end up being interrelated in
interesting ways, in order to get
the so-called mixed-mode builds to work.