Trying out C++20's modules with Clang and Make

Re:Trying out C++20's modules with Clang and Make by humanrebar on Sunday October 15, 2023 @01:03PM (#37891441)

Part of the justification is the lack of optimism that file extensions could be mandated (I'm less pessimistic).

But it's also an important hint to the preprocessor to make pre-build dependency scanning faster. You don't want to have to compile all possible source files and then throw a bunch of that work away once you find there are module dependencies in the source files. Just having a magic file extension is not enough to clarify that.

A C++ packaging standard could help there, but C++ started with modules, probably because they seemed simpler.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trying out C++20's modules with Clang and Make by bluGill on Sunday October 15, 2023 @01:31PM (#37891664)

There should not be a c++ standard for packages. Maybe an ISO standard, but it needs to work for all languages, otherwise we will all roll our own. If the package can't support all languages it doesn't support the complex world C++ is used in.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trying out C++20's modules with Clang and Make by humanrebar on Sunday October 15, 2023 @01:36PM (#37891703)

There is some work in that direction but no specific ISO proposals yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trying out C++20's modules with Clang and Make by bluGill on Monday October 16, 2023 @08:50AM (#37899130)

It is a very hard problem. I'd be concerned if there was a proposal.

[ Parent | on HN ]