erichkeane added a comment. In D120589#3408015 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D120589#3408015>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> I'm adding more reviewers for a wider audience on this topic. Personally, I > don't think we should support this extension. EWG voted pretty strongly > against it: 0/3/7/6/1 > (https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/293#issuecomment-585662477) and > Clang has a policy that language extensions should have representation within > the appropriate governing body > (https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html#criteria). Given that the governing > body for this rejected it and there's not a significant user benefit to > supporting it, I think we shouldn't step into the C++ design space for this > extension. However, I have no idea how others feel. I tend to agree, EWG seemed quite against this (though sadly, it looks like the minutes never got uploaded to the wiki). For something to fail the 'is a problem worth solving' (aka, the 'author should do more work' vote) it means the room was quite against it. While I can see the attraction of this, I don't think it is a good feature. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D120589/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D120589 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
