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

From: Chuanqi Xu (chuanqi.xcq_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-12-19 08:39:35

The idea of ignorable ‘export’ receives much more interests than I thought surprisingly. From the implementor’s position, it looks simple to implement and it looks not super bad to me to downgrade the existing error for non-sense export to warning and ignore the ‘export’ keyword. It makes sense more or less.
But another concern is, given boost (or any other library) should be accepted by other compilers and older clang. Then how could we put `export` in the sources directly? Didn’t we have to use yet another macro to handle this?
Thanks,
Chuanqi
------------------------------------------------------------------
From:Bo Persson via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
Send Time:2024 Dec. 19 (Thu.) 16:30
To:boost<boost_at_[hidden]>
Cc:Bo Persson<bo_at_[hidden]>
Subject:Re: [boost] Interest for C++20 modules support of boost officially
On 2024-12-19 at 02:26, Chuanqi Xu via Boost wrote:
> On the other hand, the idea to implement it in Clang without the proposal in WG21 looks like pandora’s box to me.
The committee is sometimes accused of inventing a new language, instead 
of only standardizing. Giving them some proven "existing practice" to 
standardize could be a good idea.
Especially if it has to do with the "export" keyword. :-)
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost <http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost >