On Mar 4, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be the audience that can't afford to alter their build infrastructure to use modules. But I see this would not be that important in the particular case of the OPs postulation. My point being that the solutions that are not ideal for this case might be applicable for the other cases.

Right. I wouldn’t prematurely characterize my own suggestions as ideal.

— Gaby


On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 11:10 PM Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@microsoft.com> wrote:
What would be a “legacy” audience here, specifically?

— Gaby

On Mar 4, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 7:25 PM Gabriel Dos Reis via Modules <modules@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
The search path facility is there only for “convenience”, for quick-and-dirty examples: the recommended approach is to explicitly list the mapping providing the IFC for the modules.  I continue to believe that is the right approach - but would love to be proven wrong.

It's best to investigate and test the various approaches not just your ideal. Depending on particular use cases one may be more appropriate than others. The TR needs to consider both the "legacy" and "future" audiences.

--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net



--
-- Rene Rivera
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net