iains added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/docs/CPlusPlus20Modules.rst:673-674 + +Another reason is that there are proposals to introduce module mappers to the C++ standard (for example, https://wg21.link/p1184r2). +If we decide to reuse Clang's modulemap, we may get in trouble once we need to introduce another module mapper. + ---------------- as an aside : there is an open question in the implementation of p1184r2 as to whether one form of input that the module mapper could consume would be module map files (but, obviously, producing C++20 compliant output). I wonder if this section is adding information that is useful to the user ? (perhaps it is more documentation of implementation decisions?) As noted before `semantics of clang module headers != semantics of C++20 header units` seems a sufficient reason for keeping them separate? I am not sure what could change in the future to alter this, since existing code will have the current semantics, even //if// some change is later made to the semantics of clang header modules ? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D131388/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D131388 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
