Got it, thanks. I've adjusted the draft to reflect this.

In regards to the motivation and scope, I am also working on that, but this
draft is only for getting your feedback on the modifications to the wording
of the standard changes and similar.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:58 AM Jason McKesson via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 8:33 PM Zopolis0 via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > > This means that by the time you get to your `export-declaration`,
> > > there must have already been a `module-declaration`, which specified
> > > the `module-name`.
> >
> > I don't see what you mean here.
> > Are you saying that this is invalid:
> >
> > export module foo;
> > //do_stuff
> > export void things {}
> >
> > Because I use that in my code already.
> > What I am proposing, in short, is to make this valid
> >
> > export module foo namespace bar
> > //do_stuff
> > export void things {}
>
> That part at the top where you say `export module`? That grammar is
> NOT an `export-declaration`. That is a `module-declaration`. That's
> the name of the C++ grammar for that.
>
> Your proposal changes the wrong piece of C++ grammar. That was my point.
>
> Also, you changed the grammar wrong even if you were trying to change
> `module-declaration`. A `module-declaration` looks like this:
>
> > export-keyword(opt) module-keyword module-name module-partition(opt)
> attribute-specifier-seq(opt);
>
> If you want to modify a module declaration, that is the grammar you
> need to work with.
>
> > I don't see how this is a significant deviation from the standard.
>
> I don't see how your proposal is clear enough to be certain how it
> intends to deviate from the standard.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>