That is the direction I would like to go eventually, but I didn't want to deprecate the old spelling in the short term, since we still have lots of module.map files that would need to be moved. The advantage of checking for the old name first is that we save stat calls by looking for the more likely to hit name first.
Ben On Mar 17, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
