ChuanqiXu 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. ---------------- iains wrote: > h-vetinari wrote: > > 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. > > > Is it not simpler than this? > > Since clang header modules have different semantics from c++20 header units, > if we were to force c++20 semantics on clang header modules, that would break > existing code (and therefore to support existing code, we would expect clang > header modules to be retained indefinitely). > I think we need to express the concern about future changes. We **may** be able to handle the differences properly **now**. 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
