On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 12:35, Andrei Grosu via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Yes, you are right, but I do not want to standardize a build system.
>
> I wanted a constexpr filesystem (and file io) that could be optionally enabled.

Then it's not appropriate for the standard.

Your suggestion is that the problems aren't significant because *you*
follow particular rules that mean they're not problems. But when
putting something in the standard we can't enforce that everybody
builds in reproducible containers nor that they use an optional
compiler flag to enable something the standard says is a required part
of C++.


>
> I don’t want to make this about build systems , but about constexpr filesystem api. I was simply pointing out that most of the problems raised by REs here can be adressed, not in a theoretical way but in a practical way ( I was working on containerized, secured, reproducible builds in containers quite a long time ago).
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024, at 14:25, Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > 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?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Std-Proposals mailing list
> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals