Re: So.... what are we going to do about modules?

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-04-05 12:46:37

On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:58 AM John Maddock via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> The title says it all really, but in more detail:
>
> 1) Is there any existing best practice we should follow yet?
>

No. And I mean that generally in the whole of the C++ ecosystem.

2) Can we share code content effectively between headers and modules?
> And by modules I mean "proper" ones: we should be able to write "import
> boost.whatever;" rather than importing a header.
>

Not sure what you're asking with that.

> 3) What directory structure should we all be using for module definition
> files?
>

Might have to answer all the other ones and more regarding C++ ecosystem
best practices before being able to answer this one.

> 4) Do we have Boost.Build support yet?
>

No. And it's not going to exist soon. As the vendor support is still
"experimental".

> 5) What file extensions should we be using?
>

We'll have to wait for the " C++ Modules Ecosystem Technical Report" to
come out <https://github.com/cplusplus/modules-ecosystem-tr> perhaps?

> 6) I presume we would all use the boost.libraryname and
> boost.libraryname.sub_feature naming convention with boost.libraryname
> pulling in the whole library?
>

Why?

7) Does anyone have a handle on the current state of std library
> modularization?
>

Having a "std" and "std.compat" is up for plenary vote for C++23 <
https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/1115>.

> 8) Is there demand for this?
>

I highly doubt it.

-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net