hokein added a comment. > Not trying to be difficult, but I'm not sure what you mean by "dependent" in > #2. Informally, it means the same thing as #1. Formally, C++ defines > type-dependence and value-dependence for expressions, and the ABI defines > instantiation-dependence for expressions - AFAIK "dependent" doesn't have a > formal meaning. > > So I'd rather say it has two definitions: > > informally, it (somehow) depends on a template parameter. > formally (from the C++ABI), an expression is instantiation-dependent if it > is type-dependent or value-dependent, or it has a subexpression that is > type-dependent or value-dependent. > To preserve the linkage between these two, IMO we need to extend the formal > definition to errors if and only if we extend the informal definition to > errors. Accidentally unlinking the two is almost certain to result in subtle > bugs as either the implementation subtly differs from the spec, or it subtly > differs from the mental model.
agree! I think the mental model you described makes more sense. yeah, it is *important* to keep the linkage between the informal and formal definition. It also explains why we should set instantiation-bit. Thanks! ok, we have an agreement on the current approach. The only remaining thing is to clarify comments in clang. I will do it here (rather than D83215 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D83215>), so that this discussion thread can be found via the commit message. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D83213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
