ChuanqiXu added a comment. Got it. The explanation makes sense. A well designed and scaling solution is what I (and probably every one) want.
Then from the expectation, the difference between supporting header modules and C++20 named modules from the **user** side may be: - For supporting header modules in clangd, it is mainly a speed issue and some corner cases. - For supporting C++20 named modules in clangd, it will be pretty hard for users to use named modules in practice. In another word, it may not be super bad for not supporting header modules in clangd. But it is super bad for named modules. So I am wondering if we can have an expectation for the time points to support named modules (even only experimentally) in clangd. For example, may it be a reasonable expectation that we can have named modules support in clangd in clang18? Clang18 will be released in the first week of March 2024. So that's still roughly 7 months away from now. I guess the time span may be sufficient. How do you feel about this? And if we have consensus on that, then we will need to move forward from the patch if we don't have solution in December at least. Since it takes time to review and experiment this further. BTW, I don't mind someone else to take this job away completely as long as we can get the support in time since I am not a clangd developer : ) CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153114/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153114 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
