aaron.ballman marked an inline comment as done.
aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h:2068
case DeclaratorContext::TrailingReturnVar:
+ case DeclaratorContext::Association:
return false;
----------------
erichkeane wrote:
> Is this right? According to the comment, this is 'true'if the identifier is
> optional or required, but the mayOmitIdentifier, where you are returning
> 'true' says optional or not allowed? Does this make identifier 'not allowed'
> here?
I believe this is correct -- associations used to be handled the same as type
names, and we still want to handle them effectively as type names. The only
distinction between an association and a type name is whether it can be a
defining type specifier or not (type name can be, association cannot be).
This is the function that tests whether you can put an identifier after the
type; e.g., `int a` and I think it's logically consistent. May the identifier
be omitted? Certainly, it must be. May it have an identifier? Definitely not.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126969/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D126969
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
