Modules in C++09?
Matthias Berndt
I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
process?
Thanks
Matthias Berndt
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
Alberto Ganesh Barbati
> Hi,
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
According to N2705
(http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2705.html) the
modules proposal is "heading for a separate TR".
The C++0x has recently entered a "stop adding features, just fixes
please" phase, so whatever feature isn't already the current working
paper is unlikely to be included in the final standard. The latest
working paper is N2798:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2798.pdf
(and I just checked, no modules there!)
HTH,
Ganesh
Rodolfo Lima
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
You can get an overview of the features and changes that are being
planned by looking at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2705.html
It reflects changes proposed to the C++ core language.
To see what will happen with the standard library, check
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2706.html
One thing I'd like to know is if there will be something similar to
those pages with features voted in the last meeting (San Francisco/
USA).
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima
Pete Becker
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
>
It's not happening for C++0x. There's a separate Technical Report for
modules in the works, but that's several years away.
--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)
Anthony Williams
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
The modules work was not going to be ready in time, so it has been
deferred to a TR after C++0x.
Anthony
--
Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL
gpderetta
> Hi,
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
>
No chances. The feature set for C++0x have been frozen for a long
time. In fact the standardization effort is for the next version of c+
+ is in its final phases.
AFAIK modules are likely to be defined in a separate Technical Report
right after C++0x is done.
--
Giovanni P. Deretta
Francis Glassborow
> Hi,
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
>
The proposal was one of several that we had to put on the back burner
because we lacked the resources to deliver C++0x anywhere close to the
desired time-scale with that proposal included. It has not been
abandoned and is close to the top of our work plans when C++0x has been
delivered.
wasti...@gmx.net
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
The chances are zero. The feature set for C++09 is fixed, except
perhaps that some things may yet be kicked out.
The modules proposal was refused pretty early in the process (2005 or
2006). You can probably dig back into the minutes of the meetings of
that time to find the exact time and also the reason why it was
rejected. All information about the process is available at
http://www.open-std.org/
Sebastian
David Abrahams
on Wed Oct 22 2008, Matthias Berndt <matthias_berndt-AT-gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe (and I think I'm not the only one) that the use of header
> files instead of proper modules is a horrible mess, and I was wondering
> if there are any plans to change this? I read a proposal about C++09
> modules once and I'd like to know how the chances are for this to get
> into C++09, maybe someone here has any insights into the standardisation
> process?
Pretty much zero chance. Work on modules has been formally relegated to
a post-C++0x technical report.
--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com