The votes in Prague were not relative to Modularizing the standard library. If there are other benefits to Modularizing the standard library and interest in pursuing them, then that seems like new information.

Personally, due to the way in which the discussion was framed and polled, I don't consider that vote any more binding than the most specific literal interpretation of each poll. I don't think "We agree to evolve the ABI" was specifically polled.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:14 AM Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Modules <modules@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
As I recall, we did not have consensus to evolve the ABI at Prague.

On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 04:13 Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
On 3/8/20 5:01 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via Ext wrote:
> Do we have any ABI stability concerns regarding modularizing the
> standard library? Certainly for strong module ownership implementations,
> this is a concern, but for weak module ownership implementations it may
> be a concern too, because the mangling of internal implementation
> details with module linkage would change.
>
> Can implementations overcome this with special hacks for the standard
> library that preserve the old mangled names?

Some pushed for a breaking ABI change in Prague.  This might be their
opportunity!

nathan

--
Nathan Sidwell
_______________________________________________
Modules mailing list
Modules@lists.isocpp.org
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/modules
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/modules/2020/03/0824.php