[Tooling] [Ext] Modules and tooling: Resolving module import declarations
Nathan Sidwell
nathan at acm.org
Fri Aug 31 13:53:02 CEST 2018
On 08/31/2018 07:09 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> Message-ID: <boris.20180831104601 at codesynthesis.com>
>
> Tom Honermann <tom at honermann.net> writes:
>> 2. A method of specifying a path to search for module description
>> files, similar to existing include paths.
>
> I would argue against any kind of "search paths" approach (whether for
> modules or description files themselves). We've used them for includes
> and I think it has proven to be brittle (I am talking about the "header
> doesn't exist where you expect it to exist but the compiler found you
> another one" kind of situtions) and not toolable (where shoudl I generate
> this non-existent header?)
A search path seems the obvious choice, because of the similarity to
include paths. It is the route I originally went down. It's a trap! As
Boris says, it's brittle. It continues the performance problems of
searching a bunch of filesystem locations for each import.
I abandoned that approach for an interface allowing the compiler to be
agnostic, and other tools to plug into that. Expect a paper for San Diego.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
More information about the Tooling
mailing list