[OT] Modules dropped out of C++17

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 8 June 2015 at 22:22:51 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/8/15 1:25 PM, ponce wrote:
>> C++'s constexpr looks broken because everything must be marked
>> constexpre, which defeats the purpose of having compile-time 
>> code
>> looking like runtime code. But I never had the pleasure to use 
>> it.
>
> Yeah, it's sadly quite björked. Scott Meyers and I looked at 
> the feature and the logical conclusion for a guideline was 
> "Speculatively mark everything in sight as constexpr". That 
> doesn't quite scale. -- Andrei

Same as with @safe @nogc @nothrow @pure. If you don't have 
ctfeability expressed in function's contract, you have no idea 
how you can modify the function's implementation so that to not 
break other people's code. Sorry for making c++ look cute again :)