• I want a scope on that reorganization.

Please clarify the kind of “scope of reorganization” that isn’t already contained in that paper.

-- Gaby

From: Ext <ext-bounces@lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 2:45 AM
To: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
Cc: Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash <brycelelbach@gmail.com>; Ben Boeckel via Modules <modules@lists.isocpp.org>; ISO C++ Tooling Study Group <sg15@lists.isocpp.org>; C++ Library Evolution Working Group <lib-ext@lists.isocpp.org>; Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext@lists.isocpp.org>; Nagy-Egri Máté Ferenc <nagy-egri.mate@wigner.mta.hu>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [SG15] Modularization of the standard library andABI stability

I want a scope on that reorganization.

What problems do we want to solve? Possible answers:

- Finer grained access to things, either in addition to or in place of coarse access (for example being able to just get function, not all of <functional>)

- More logical access to things (tuple is in <tuple>, so clearly pair must be in <pair>... oh wait)

- Freestanding concerns (separate function from parts of <functional> that are complicated to freestandingifyl

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 02:39 Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 11:33, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
<brycelelbach@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I wrote a paper that in large part was a response to P0581, so yes, I've read it a few times.
>
> https://wg21.link/P1453
>
> It sounded like you were trying to make a point. Can you be clearer about what that point was?

P0581 has some bits of rationale for providing named modules, not just
transitioned headers.
Reorganization seems to be one of them.