News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification. Parent comment

Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by qznc on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @10:30AM (#15450027)
For Java, class, package and (Java 9 Jigsaw) module all fit the Wikipedia definition of module.

We might have consensus about the definition, but it does not seem to be a useful precise one. The C++ working group seems to have a similar problem. Things like "compilation unit" have a precise meaning, but they cannot find consensus if it should relate to their "module" or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Killing the C++ Modules Technical Specification by pjmlp on Wednesday October 11, 2017 @11:22AM (#15450483)
The basic concept of module is having language support for code separation, with data/code hiding, compiler type checking across modules and optimally a binary format.

I think the issue is more with some C++ devs that never used other languages, trying to grasp how modules fit into translation unit + PCH model they know.

[ Parent | on HN ]