rsmith added a comment. In D59754#1665601 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754#1665601>, @thakis wrote:
> Another question about this, sorry. Do you know _why_ C++20 is more > restrictive than C99 wrt "mixture of designated and non-designated > initializers in the same initializer list is a C99 extension"? Is there some > interaction with other C++ features that makes the C99 behavior difficult in > C++20? The design paper P0329R0 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0329r0.pdf> describes this behavior but doesn't give much rationale. According to the minutes and my recollections, this was part of the design as presented and didn't really receive any pushback at any stage of the feature design and discussion. I think generally the feeling was that there was insufficient motivation for adding that level of complexity (much like with the restriction to single-level designators and lack of support for array designators). Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D59754 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
