Note that MSVC has been experimenting with modular views of the standard library since late 2015, and the paper I cited earlier was based on that experiment.

-- Gaby
From: Ext <ext-bounces@lists.isocpp.org> on behalf of Arthur O'Dwyer via Ext <ext@lists.isocpp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2020 7:42:41 PM
To: Evolution Working Group mailing list <ext@lists.isocpp.org>
Cc: Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer@gmail.com>; Michael Spencer 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>; Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-ext] [isocpp-modules] Modularization of the standard library and ABI stability
 
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:01 PM David Stone via Ext <ext@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 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.

As a reminder, these were the polls: 
[...]

3. From now on, we should consider incremental ABI for every C++ release

SF F N A SA
98 35 6 0 2

Consensus


Could someone who was there, please tell me what this poll's text means?
What does "consider incremental ABI" mean?

–Arthur

P.S. — Back on the question of "how should a modularized STL look," personally I think that's an area that should be pioneered by practitioners — library-writers and library vendors — not by ISO on paper. Are the libstdc++ and libc++ communities actually investing in an attempt to deliver a modular STL?  If they're not, is it just for lack of manpower? Is any third party currently working on a modular STL, the way we saw third parties working on `fmt` and `range-v3` and ASIO and Boost?