On 11/28/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2012 Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote: > > 2012/11/29 Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net>: > > > My understanding from attending the last C++ standards > > > committee is that we are still way far from having something > > > that gets consensus of good enough proposal on modules to > > > coalesce around. We have several proposals, each in various > > > states of experimental implementations; nothing more. > > > > Do you have pointers to any other other (currently viable) > > proposals, besides the one outlined by N3347 and the slides > > Chris pointed a link to? > > Lawrence Crowl (in collaboration with Diego I think) has a proposal > based on PPH. Lawrence knows best the proposal number.
The paper is N3426 Experience with Pre-Parsed Headers. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3426.html Note however, that this paper is not a C++ proposal. It tells our experience in trying to save header parses. By design, PPH does not address some issues that we think need to be addressed in a full modules proposal. In particular, we think export control is important to both robust software and decent compilation performance. > It was already pointed out that David Vandevoorde has a proposal > slightly different from Clang's. > > At the Fall 2012 Portland meeting, people from CERN expressed > concerns about Clang's implementation and have been working with > Clang people to get their proposed modifications integrated; it is > not clear to me whether they have made progress on that or whether > they are going to formally put forward a fourth formal proposal. > As Doug just indicated, there is going to be another proposal > based on Clang's current implementation -- which is different > from the document referred to earlier. -- Lawrence Crowl