On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote: > On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote: >>> What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see >>> any of those in the C++ standard working paper: >>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf >> >> It's far too early for anything to have been voted into the working >> paper, that doesn't change the fact there's a WG21 study group, >> chaired by Doug, working on modules. See >> http://isocpp.org/std/the-committee > > Oh sorry, I didn't follow the link to realise that's Vandevoorde's > most recent proposal. When you said "working paper" I thought you > meant the current C++ draft, which is what people usually mean by "the > C++ standard working paper". N3347 is just a proposal, it's not part > of the standard and hasn't been approved or agreed on as being "the > current state of modules". There are often competing or alternative > proposals during development of a feature.
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. -- Gaby
