I have no objection to the name change. It seems that the intent is to move away from the old module.map name entirely. That being the case, should we look for the new name first, and consider adding a warning if we find the old name?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <[email protected]>wrote: > + Richard. > > Do you have an objection to what Ben proposes here ? The ".map" extension > is unfortunate and we'd really like to move ".modulemap"; the best chance > to change it is now, before first class support for user modules enters the > picture. > > On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Ben Langmuir <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This name, while more verbose, plays more nicely with tools that use > > file extensions to determine file types. The existing spelling > > 'module.map' will continue to work, and at least for now will take > > precedence if both files exist within a directory. In a future patch, > I > > intend to add a warning for when both files could be found. > > > > In frameworks, this new filename will only go in a new 'Modules' > > sub-directory. > > > > Similarly, add a module.private.modulemap corresponding to > > module_private.map. > > > > <modulemap.patch> > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
