On 3/12/24 15:03, Andrei Grosu via Std-Proposals wrote:
> You are right, I will return with a complete example to explain the
> problem, but , unrelated to my specific use case, the problems you and
> someone else raised are non-problems from my perspective:
>
> All builds are made in containers that I define and are by definition
> reproducible builds. There are pretty strong guarantees that a
> container-based reproducible build system guarantees the exact same
> environment, including the filesystem . Similarly, any security concers
> of Marcin are moot : any changes will be local to that container.
> I agree that maybe containerized, reproducible build systems are not the
> norm in the c++ world, but still.
>
> But thanks for the input.

Build environment is out of scope of the C++ standard. Whatever language
feature you propose, must work well in any reasonable build environment.

> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 13:49, Matthew Taylor wrote:
>> Granted, I'm not as familiar as some to the specific needs of writing
>> a build system, but could you elaborate further on specifically what
>> you want and specifically why it would be an improvement? Just adding
>> constexpr to filesystem operations seems like it has a large area of
>> confusion for the obvious reason of there being no guarantee that a
>> program will be compiled and run on the same filesystem (as well as a
>> few other reasons of varying obviousness).
>>
>>
>> Are you looking for a facility like #embed, to directly embed file
>> data into your source code? Or are you thinking of the possibility of
>> more complex file manipulation performed by the compiler?
>
>