[PATCH] D131062: [docs] Add "C++20 Modules"

[Iain Sandoe via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

iains added a comment.

@h-vetinari you are right, this has become difficult to review - I will try and do some more later - just the one comment for now.



================
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.
----------------
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).



CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D131062/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D131062