h-vetinari added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/CPlusPlus20Modules.rst:676-678 +So the final answer for why we don't reuse the interface of Clang modules for header units is that +we've see some differences between header units and Clang modules and we think the differences may +be too large to be acceptable in the future. ---------------- ChuanqiXu wrote: > h-vetinari wrote: > > > Since it says `in the future`, if it is better to use `may be` or `will be` > than `are` ? > Since it says `in the future`, if it is better to use `may be` or `will be` > than `are` ? The "we think" already contains built-in subjectiveness, so the "may be" is redundant in terms of uncertainty. It's not a big deal, but in general: either "they may be" or "we think they are". It would also be possible to say something like: > So the final answer for why we don't reuse the interface of Clang modules for > header units is that > there are some differences between header units and Clang modules and that > ignoring those > differences now would likely become a problem in the future. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131062/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131062 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
