aaron.ballman added a comment. In D113393#3345672 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393#3345672>, @Quuxplusone wrote:
> In D113393#3345275 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393#3345275>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >>> Also implemented decltype(auto)(x) (https://wg21.link/p0849r2) as a Clang >>> extension. >> >> I'd like to better understand the use cases for this. WG21 considered this >> as part of the feature and ultimately rejected it (fairly strongly, >> according to the EWG polls). From the meeting minutes, it says that the >> reason EWG disliked the idea is because of its expert-friendly nature and >> that this facility would present teachability issues. I tend to agree, so >> I'm wondering why we want to add the feature as an extension when WG21 >> explicitly rejected it (that doesn't seem in line with our extension policy: >> https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html#criteria). > > (I'm not directly answering Aaron's question.) Personally I think it makes > sense to support `decltype(auto)(x)` in the same release as `auto(x)`, for > the same reason we supported `Constrained decltype(auto)` in the same release > as `Constrained auto`. //But//, rather than have that essentially tangential > policy discussion in //this// PR, @lichray, would you be willing to split out > all the changes related to `decltype(auto)(x)` into their own separate PR, > (1) so that we could land the uncontroversial C++20 `auto(x)` parts sooner > rather than later, and (2) so that if three years from now someone //does// > decide to revert `decltype(auto)(x)`, all its changes will be nicely isolated > in their own commit instead of mixed in with important bits of our C++20 > conformance? And (3) so that we could have the "Should we do this?" policy > discussion in //that// PR, instead of here, and (4) the discussion would be > more focused because we could see //exactly// the set of diffs we're talking > about, instead of mixed in etc etc. This option sounds quite sensible to me! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D113393 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
