Stephen Kelly-2 wrote
Robert Ramey wrote:
And my proposal for the "bridge" module (maybe better called "forward" module is just that - a proposal. I would like time to think about that some more - a hear what other's have to say as well.
* Educate yourself about C++17/Clang modules
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.
* If modular releases are a goal, as you claim, decide which tarballs should be created for releases. One repo one tarball or something different?
An interesting question. I haven't really thought of releases in terms of tar balls but I'll spend some time on this.
* Determine how C++17/Clang modules relate to modular boost releases.
Since you seem to have some information and/or thoughts about this why not save us all a lot of time and just post them here yourself?
* Determine whether forwarding headers fit into the very real scenario of a world where C++17/Clang modules are pervasive.
I don't see C++17/Clang modules (whatever they might be) pervasive in the current real world. As far as I can tell, my proposal for "bridging headers" is the only credible specific one suggested so far. I conceded that I haven't spent a lot of time thinking through the implications (though it seems that I've spent more than others). That's why I've asked for comments. So far I haven't got any real comment on it. I'm still thinking about it. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/type-traits-Rewrite-and-dependency-free-v... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.