Niall Douglas wrote:
On 3 Feb 2015 at 22:02, Stephen Kelly wrote:
I confess that I haven't seen this in any way related to C++17. I would certainly be skeptical of anyone spending any time on something as speculative as a future C++ standard before it's finalized.
That's no reason not to educate yourself on it, and it's no reason not to try the clang implementation.
For the record, you can simulate clang's modules using any compiler by simply compiling in everything as a single translation unit.
The point is: either Boost is prepared for declaring 'this group of headers depends on that group' (and then taking advantage of the things that follow that declaration), or it is not. Serialization and Robert have been the biggest barriers to that because of the cycle. There are other cycles, but that's been the most problematic one. I was very sad when I saw that cycle in my analysis because I knew Robert would not see the problem and would block any change with all available energy and his fantasies about tracking header file dependencies and imaginary tooling. I tried to raise it as an issue anyway. Maybe in a year something will change. It took a long time for anyone in this community to take any notice of the concept of modularity at all, but now there seem to be a few people who get it. That took many many months though... Why is that? Thanks, Steve.