> You can write `extern "C"` declarations in modules, actually.
See, I did not know that :-)
> And either way the complexity of C++ and its name mangling is independent of headers vs modules, no?
You got me self-doubting here: C++ implementations are necessarily more complex than their interfaces.
The full complexity of C++ (not restricted to only name-mangling) is not usually found in headers intended for consumption by a C-interface compatible consumer.
The intention of headers is to serve as an interface alone, but absolutely nothing enforces that - nothing stops the developer from dumping the entire implementation into the header (and this is a popular route for some libraries that are header-only).
Modules are not intended to serve as an interface alone, so it is more likely that devs (myself included) will simply throw the entire implementation into a module, because it seems like a better idea to do so with modules.
IOW, common practice for headers is to only have the interface necessary to use the implementation, but I think that common practice for modules will be to have the implementation and interface included in a single module.
> Further, swig does seem to support quite a bit of C++. IIUC it even avoids dealing with name mangling by generating wrappers that provide a C interface.
Swig supports much of C++ in a smart way, by default. For things like demangling swig generates `extern "C"` wrappers (for functions, definitely - not so sure about class typenames and enum typenames).
But, to generate those wrappers from modules requires the original source code for those modules, and to use generated C++ wrappers, it needs to be compiled with the same compiler: Not a large hurdle, but it is definitely an additional concern compared to using the headers.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out: how long it takes until swig support for modules, or swig-like tooling for modules, comes along. It's still early days for modules, after all.
> Modules are not intended to serve as an interface alone, so it is more likely that devs (myself included) will simply throw the entire implementation into a module, because it seems like a better idea to do so with modules.
>
> IOW, common practice for headers is to only have the interface necessary to use the implementation, but I think that common practice for modules will be to have the implementation and interface included in a single module.
While I'm sure some people will do this (just like they do with header-only libraries, and are forced to do with C++ features like templates) modules do support the same interface/implementation split as headers.
I suspect that a lot of code will stick with that split for a couple of reasons. First, they already have it with headers, so migrating over to modules will be less work if they just leave things that way. And second, downstream translation units that import the module can't (with today's compilers) even start building until their dependencies' interfaces have finished building, so keeping the split may also turn out to improve build times.
Really though, I think the ideal here is not for library authors to have to maintain C-ish interface headers as a sort of conflation with that interface/implementation split. That should be generated by a tool- either something like swig (which knows more about the other side of the binding) or at least a C++ tool like you mentioned upthread. This is also how, for example, Carbon plans to do its C++ interop.
> But, to generate those wrappers from modules requires the original source code for those modules
This part I don't think is actually going to be an issue, because pre-compiled module interfaces are not really any more usable in C++-land than pre-compiled libraries. They also have to be compiled by the same compiler, with the same configuration, so people will have to provide the module interface sources just like they provide headers.
See, I did not know that :-)
> And either way the complexity of C++ and its name mangling is independent of headers vs modules, no?
You got me self-doubting here: C++ implementations are necessarily more complex than their interfaces.
The full complexity of C++ (not restricted to only name-mangling) is not usually found in headers intended for consumption by a C-interface compatible consumer.
The intention of headers is to serve as an interface alone, but absolutely nothing enforces that - nothing stops the developer from dumping the entire implementation into the header (and this is a popular route for some libraries that are header-only).
Modules are not intended to serve as an interface alone, so it is more likely that devs (myself included) will simply throw the entire implementation into a module, because it seems like a better idea to do so with modules.
IOW, common practice for headers is to only have the interface necessary to use the implementation, but I think that common practice for modules will be to have the implementation and interface included in a single module.
> Further, swig does seem to support quite a bit of C++. IIUC it even avoids dealing with name mangling by generating wrappers that provide a C interface.
Swig supports much of C++ in a smart way, by default. For things like demangling swig generates `extern "C"` wrappers (for functions, definitely - not so sure about class typenames and enum typenames).
But, to generate those wrappers from modules requires the original source code for those modules, and to use generated C++ wrappers, it needs to be compiled with the same compiler: Not a large hurdle, but it is definitely an additional concern compared to using the headers.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out: how long it takes until swig support for modules, or swig-like tooling for modules, comes along. It's still early days for modules, after all.