shafik added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr23xx.cpp:42
+namespace dr2335 { // dr2335: no drafting
+// FIXME: all of the examples are well-formed.
----------------
Endill wrote:
> aaron.ballman wrote:
> > Endill wrote:
> > > shafik wrote:
> > > > My comment on 1890 applies here as well.
> > > >
> > > > CC @rsmith @aaron.ballman how should we handle DRs that are still in
> > > > process? While we may think we know the direction it is going in, it
> > > > could change.
> > > >
> > > > So maybe we should avoid expressing an opinion on whether these are
> > > > well-formed or not?
> > > I asked Aaron even before uploading the patch. His response was:
> > > > I think it's a judgement call -- if the CWG consensus seems like it
> > > > makes a lot of sense, then I see no reason not to test them but maybe
> > > > leave a FIXME comment about the issue technically being open still. If
> > > > the CWG consensus doesn't make sense, that might be time to get on the
> > > > reflectors and ask questions
> > >
> > > Consensus documented in 2335 and drafting notes in P1787 that I quote in
> > > the summary made sense to me, so I published this patch. I can abandon it
> > > if there are fundamental issues with the them, rendering my judgement
> > > wrong.
> > I'd be curious to hear more thoughts on this.
> >
> > In this particular case, this has been in drafting status since 2017, but
> > the final comments on the open issue are:
> > ```
> > Notes from the June, 2018 meeting:
> >
> > The consensus of CWG was to treat templates and classes the same by
> > "instantiating" delayed-parse regions when they are needed instead of at
> > the end of the class.
> >
> > See also issue 1890.
> > ```
> > which seemed sufficiently firm in direction to warrant testing the
> > behavior. I think any open DR being tested is subject to change in Clang
> > and should continue to be documented in cxx_dr_status.html as "not
> > resolved", though (so if CWG does make a change, we can still react to it
> > without having promised the current behavior to users).
> As a recap, in D138901 I updated `make_cxx_dr_status` script, so that it can
> take into account unresolved issues. Precedents were 2565 and 2628, which
> resorted to editing `cxx_dr_status.html` manually. Script now make sure that
> `open` or `drafting` bit in the comment matches status from the official
> page, throwing an exception otherwise.
I think documenting this is important.
What Aaron says makes sense to me, I just find the current comment `all of the
examples are well-formed.` feels like a promise even though in the status page
we may say not resolved.
I feel like the wording should be more cautious, maybe more like `Current
consensus is that the examples are well-formed`.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148433/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148433
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
