rjmccall added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52339#1242241, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52339#1242202, @erik.pilkington wrote: > > > From the last line in the paper, it seems that C++ compatibility is a goal > > of the paper (or at least a consideration). We should probably think about > > this if/when the final wording gets accepted though. > > > Agreed. WG14's charter explicitly prefers compatibility with C++ when > possible. > > The part that I wasn't quite sure on were the type constraints in the > proposal. C++ allows any integral type and ignores cv qualifiers, but the > proposal lists specific types and doesn't discuss qualifiers. By my reading, > this is code allowed in C++ but prohibited in the proposed wording: > > enum E : const int32_t { > One > }; > > > (Because the type is int32_t and is cv-qualified.) However, it's possible > that's an oversight rather than an intentional design. I'll bring it up with > Clive to see, but perhaps we can spot other divergences and can provide him > with a list of concerns on the implementation side. Not accepting `typedef`s would be negligence on behalf of the committee, since generally people use this feature specifically to control the size of the `enum`, which you can't do portably without a `typedef`. Not accepting qualified types is a justifiable decision. There's no reason to make this an `ObjC2`-only feature; we should probably eliminate that distinction throughout the compiler. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D52339 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
