No... it will still introduce breaking change since now we may still import parition in implementation unit which is not a partition if the imported partition is an implementation partition.
And from language perpsective, the users now can legally import any partition if they want. This is not banned. So the trival change (asking implementation unit don’t importing the primary module interface unit) will be a breaking change in my mind.
Thanks,
Chuanqi
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Jan Kokemüller <jan.kokemueller_at_gmail.com>
Send Time:Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 19:53
To:SG15<sg15_at_lists.isocpp.org>; core<core_at_[hidden]>
CC:Chuanqi Xu<chuanqi.xcq_at_[hidden]>
Subject:Re: [isocpp-sg15] [isocpp-core] [modules] wordings to allow build system to not always emit BMI for implementation partition units
On 15.01.26 04:31, Chuanqi Xu via SG15 wrote:
>> It seems to me that what you want is a module implementation unit that doesn't import the primary module interface unit.
>
> Yeah, exactly.
>
>> The evolution question is whether we want to add a way to express this use case without the throwaway partition name.
>
> I didn’t think this in the first time since I feel this is a breaking change. But, if we or the EWG feel good, maybe we can do this?
What about the following (breaking) change to the standard:
 module B; // implicitly imports B as usual
...but:
 module B; // does _not_ implicitly import B
 import :Y; // ...because we explicitly import a partition
Looking at the ecosystem we might just get away with this breaking change... What do you think?