[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