cor3ntin added a comment.
In D149276#4302700 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D149276#4302700>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> The changes generally LGTM, but:
>
>> in a way consistent with the proposed resolution to CWG1223.
>
> What are the chances that CWG changes their mind and picks a different
> direction?
CWG acts in mysterious ways, so it's hard to tell. but i think anything else
than this resolution could potentially break code?
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Parse/ParseTentative.cpp:1067
+ bool mayHaveDirectInit,
+ bool mayHaveTrailingReturnType) {
// declarator:
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> tbaeder wrote:
> > Not part of this commit I guess, but //four// bool parameters is truly
> > horrific :/
> Yeah, a refactoring here would not be amiss (but outside of this patch, I
> think).
Agreed, we probably want an enum there instead, i could follow up
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149276/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D149276
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
