Endill added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr6xx.cpp:18
+ sp->f(2);
+ sp->f(2.2); // expected-error {{is a private member}}
+}
----------------
shafik wrote:
> Maybe add a comment above this saying something like:
>
> ```
> // access control is applied after overload resolution
> // [class.access.general]p4 "For an overload set, access control is applied
> only to the function selected by overload resolution."
> ```
I tend to like the idea, but I wonder about general rule for adding such
explanations. Currently DR tests contain very little of those.
If we're going to add explanations, we should also decide whether we're going
to cite the standard, or paraphrase (and/or) explain intent. My concern is that
both references to standard and citations could grow old relatively quickly,
and we don't have any tools to help, at least yet.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139173/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D139173
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
