dblaikie added a comment. In D107292#2920746 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920746>, @cjdb wrote:
> In D107292#2920637 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292#2920637>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Not a huge objection - but minor quandry: What's the motivation for this >> patch? I don't know of any codebase that encourages/uses the alternative >> tokens and I wonder if adding more usability to them is a worthwhile >> investment in clang's codebase complexity, etc. > > There are codebases that use them (all of my non-Google, non-LLVM code does, > for example, and I'm not the sole user: just a loud one who's also in a > position to patch tooling). Ah, any pointers to large open source projects that use this? > The motivation for this warning is essentially to catch someone who > misunderstands/misreads the diagnostic of what's currently in D107294 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107294>. Ah, OK - I see some of the usual objections are being voiced over there so I'll leave it over there/subscribe there to follow that discussion. Thanks! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D107292 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
