On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@googlers.com> wrote: > 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.
Thanks, Lawrence! -- Gaby
