[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D144994: [Draft][libc++][modules] Adds std module.

[Nikolas Klauser via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

philnik added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Modules.rst:61
+   features become available.) Does libc++ want to retroactively supply the
+   module in ``C++23`` or restrict it to ``C++23`` and later?
+ * Do we want the feature behind a configuration flag or not? Louis already
----------------



================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__compare/synth_three_way.h:31
+// Possible fix https://reviews.llvm.org/D140002
+#if 0
 _LIBCPP_HIDE_FROM_ABI inline constexpr auto __synth_three_way =
----------------
IMO the new code is cleaner anyways, so we might as well change it. I actually had this on my TODO list for quite a while.


================
Comment at: libcxx/stdmodules/std-format.cppm:12
+// TODO This file is two-fold
+// - look at how we want to integrate a synopsis
+// - test whether the experimental library works properly
----------------
Mordante wrote:
> aaronmondal wrote:
> > philnik wrote:
> > > My stance is still that we should just not have it/remove it. Having notes on the papers/extra status pages for large papers is way more reliable than looking through the synopsis, but I guess nobody agrees with me here.
> > +1 from me.
> > 
> > Personally, I find the style you suggested in https://reviews.llvm.org/D135507 very readable.
> > 
> > Potentially with links to the corresponding sections/papers even. A broken/outdated link is still a lot better than a potentially ever so slightly outdated docstring.
> > My stance is still that we should just not have it/remove it. Having notes on the papers/extra status pages for large papers is way more reliable than looking through the synopsis, but I guess nobody agrees with me here.
> 
> I disagree that nobody agrees with you. I'm also not fond of the current synopsis, since it's quite often out of date. I discussed that a few weeks ago privately with Louis and when we discussed modules he thought these files would be a better place for the synopsis. That's why I added it here, however for now I only do that for one header, where I exactly know the implementation status. For other headers this will be more effort.
Good to know.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D144994/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D144994