I see. My issue is basically "export import <foo.h>;" is not working as
expected. Meaning every single file that needs to use that macro must know
about foo.h, a module can't recursively export them. Also as far as I
understand, that syntax still requires foo.h to be contained in an include
path or the same directory as the current file, you don't need to know
anything about file structure or have include paths in normal module files.
These might seem trivial, but consider you have some globally required
macros.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 11:14 AM Daniela Engert <dani_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> > James <james.business.84_at_[hidden]> hat am 03.12.2024 08:50 CET
> geschrieben:
> >
> >
> > Can you give an example of "header units"? I can't find an example of
> that.
>
> you might want to look at http://eel.is/c++draft/cpp.import or
> http://eel.is/c++draft/module#import-5
>
> > If I understand correctly, you mean I can have a header unit "foo" which
> can be imported from "main.cpp" and "main.cpp" can access macros, right?
> > ```cpp
> > import foo;
> > constexpr int val = SOME_MACRO_FROM_FOO;
> > ```
>
> Pretty close, you need to massage your import a bit
>
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2024 at 9:39 AM Daniela Engert <dani_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > James via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> hat am 03.12.2024 07:04 CET
> geschrieben:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > While working with C++ modules, I’ve noticed there’s currently no
> way to export macros from a module. Even if you wanted to opt into this,
> there’s no mechanism available.
> > >
> > > This is not exactly correct: the mechanism to export macros from
> modules is called "header units".
> > >
> > > > Given that macros are still essential for tasks like conditional
> compilation, this feels like a limitation. While macros can be
> controversial, they do help avoid repetitive and error-prone boilerplate in
> certain cases.
> > > > Using headers is still an option, but it somewhat defeats the
> purpose of modules since each header needs to be parsed and preprocessed
> for every translation unit.
> > >
> > > The "easy" way around such perceived limitations is wrapping the
> module into a tiny header which implicitly imports the module, and brings a
> set of macros with it.
> > >
> > > > PCHs can help, but they’re limited to a single PCH per project and
> require additional setup.
> > > > I’d like to see a solution to this, but I’m unsure of the best path
> forward. Here are a few ideas I’ve considered:
> > > > 1-) Allow exporting macros from modules (perhaps with a special
> directive like "#define_export").
> > > > 2-) Enhance PCHs to be importable from consumed libraries. (meaning
> consumers will have both their own PCH(if there is one) and also consumed
> libraries' PCH precompiled)
> > > > 3-) Introduce a mechanism for exporting macros from modules that
> are preprocessed only once.
> > >
> > > My experiences from working with modules for the past 6 years, and
> having them in production for nearly 3 years, never gave rise to advocate
> *language* changes similar to your ideas. But may be my use cases are just
> different.
> > >
> > > Dani
> > >
>