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

From: Ruben Perez (rubenperez038_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-12-22 15:08:27

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 at 17:06, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Ruben Perez wrote:
> > This is what I currently have. It's incomplete and will get some more work
> > today:
> >
> > https://github.com/anarthal/boost-cmake/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
> > https://github.com/anarthal/config/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
> > https://github.com/anarthal/assert/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
> > https://github.com/anarthal/throw_exception/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
> > https://github.com/anarthal/mp11/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
> > https://github.com/anarthal/core/tree/feature/cxx20-modules
>
> I don't think BOOST_CXX20_MODULE is the right name. Macros prefixed
> with BOOST_CXXnn_ indicate feature availability. The modules macro would
> be called BOOST_CXX20_NO_MODULES, because we use negative macros.
>
> (And BOOST_CXX23_NO_STD_MODULE, respectively.)
>
> What we need here is not an availability macro (are C++20 modules
> supported by the compiler?) but a user configuration macro (I want to
> use Boost as modules.)
>
> It should be something like BOOST_USE_MODULES, for instance.
>
>

Completely agree. I will change it.