>
> It is quite hard (explained why by several people in this thread).
> This is the reason why pretty much everyone gave up on supporting
> header units.

 It's good that you wrote "pretty much" with everyone. Now the second part
of your statement is quite accurate. But, I disagree with the first part.
If a build-system is better designed (dynamic targets support most
importantly) like HMake, then supporting header-units is not "quite hard".

Best,
Hassan Sajjad

On Wed, Dec 4, 2024 at 3:38 PM Boris Kolpackov via SG15 <
sg15_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Mathias Stearn via SG15 <sg15_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > Preface: I'm not saying we _should_ do this, just that it isn't quite as
> > hard on the build system.
>
> It is quite hard (explained why by several people in this thread).
> This is the reason why pretty much everyone gave up on supporting
> header units.
>
>
> > the second scan pass could treat them just like header units (which
> > don't require a BMI before scanning)
>
> They don't require BMI before scanning only if you can recreate
> the header importation semantics with the textual "import". To
> my knowledge, only Clang has such a mode and the MSVC folks told
> me they have no plans to provide anything like this.
> _______________________________________________
> SG15 mailing list
> SG15_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg15
>