Yes, that does remind me that I never submitted the format as a proper
paper. Which will need a json schema specification as well.

But I think that's ok, we can use the libc++ experience as the motivation
for the format.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 22:11 Mark de Wever <koraq_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> Ben Boeckel pointed out an inconsistency in libc++. I used
> is-std-library and is-standard-library. I just noticed this was copied
> from the example in the specification. For libc++ I now use
> is-std-library.
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 04:56:32PM -0500, Daniel Ruoso via SG15 wrote:
> > * is-std-library (optional, default to false): Indicates that the module
> > is allowed to use names that are reserved to the standard library.
>
> ...
>
> > # Example
> >
> > Here's how I would expect that would look like for a standard library
> > (assuming the modules file for now), such as libc++:
> >
> > {
> > "version": 1,
> > "revision": 1,
> > "modules": [
> > {
> > "logical-name": "std",
> > "source-path": "modules/std.cppm",
> > "is-standard-library": true
> > },
> > {
> > "logical-name": "std.compat",
> > "source-path": "modules/std.compat.cppm"
> > "is-std-library": true
> > },
> > {
> > "logical-name": "std:someinterfacepartition",
> > "source-path": "modules/std-someinterfacepartition.cppm"
> > "is-std-library": true
> > }
> > ]
> > }
> >
> > Note that this specifically doesn't use any of the local arguments,
> because
> > I don't really think that's going to be needed for the standard library
> > case. The only special case is the is-standard-library key, to allow the
> > build system to know this is not an accidental collision with the
> reserved
> > names. We may decide not to settle the local-arguments part of the
> proposal
> > now for that reason.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>