Re: Interest for C++20 modules support of boost officially

From: Chuanqi Xu (chuanqi.xcq_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-12-19 01:26:54

Hi René,
 Interesting, I didn’t think about it actually. On the one hand, it is surprising to me to heard we don’t miss C++23 train. On the other hand, the idea to implement it in Clang without the proposal in WG21 looks like pandora’s box to me.
 If we did the second point, the code accepted by clang may not be accepted by other compilers. Although it happens now, we don’t want it to be the case. Further more, I feel it makes the position of WG21 to be in a pretty embrassive position.
Thanks,
Chuanqi
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
Send Time:2024 Dec. 19 (Thu.) 05:07
To:boost<boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc:Matt Borland<matt_at_[hidden]>; Chuanqi<chuanqi.xcq_at_[hidden]>; Ben Boeckel<ben.boeckel_at_[hidden]>
Subject:Re: [boost] Interest for C++20 modules support of boost officially
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:19 PM Chuanqi Xu via Boost <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden] >> wrote: 
> Would have been nice if the `export` keyword was accepted and silently ignored
 when outside of module.
 Yes, but we have missed the train.
There are more trains. And there's apparently still time for the C++23 train. This is something that would be entirely possible to propose now as an improvement for adoptability of modules. Who wants to write a proposal?
Actually, we don't even need a train. Implementations could do that now without any ill effects (and even backported). And use it as implementation experience. What do you think Chuanqi of implementing that in clang?
-- 
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supongas Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net <http://robot-dreams.net/ >