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?