PikachuHy

I rebase the PR to the latest master branch due to `MODULE.bazel.lock` conflict

> Some people are out of office. The main discussion will start second week of November. I’ll post next update after that. gentle ping :-)

> Some people are out of office. The main discussion will start second week of November. I’ll post next update after that. gentle ping :-)

> This PR already got a lot of attention at Google in the group of C++ toolchain maintainers / experts. There’s a desire to have it, but no concrete/incompatible plans...

> Google would like to implement the support for C++20 modules in Bazel and deploy them internally, however our timeline for this is in about 2 years. ... but at...

> > The difficulty in accepting this PR is that the current design might differ from the final one we will eventually land on. We’re not even clear what new...

> For the sake of improving the quality of the review, do you think you could break this XXL PR into several digestible pieces? I'll take care that each piece...

@mathstuf Thanks for your comments. I will make the related code changes as soon as possible.

hi @peakschris , (https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/pull/22425#issuecomment-2184906317) thanks very much for your interest to this PR. > what is the status of this? I mocked up modules in a non-bazel environment and it...

> It appears that we need to wait for PR4 to be rebased and merged before we can experiment with this, is that correct? Yes. If the https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/pull/22553 is merged,...