erichkeane wrote: > We basically have the following options here: > > 1. Use C++23 semantics in C++23 mode, with a warning. > 2. Use C++2c semantics in C++23 mode, with a warning. > 3. Reject the construct with a hard error in C++23 mode. > > (2) and (3) are basically removing the pack expansion parse from the C++23 > grammar. Maybe we should ask the committee for a DR number to explicitly > bless this approach.
I think the standard has already decided on 3, that this construct is ill-formed in C++23. I think we should do a warning in C++98->C++20 that this going to break in the future, do an Error in C++23, and do the 'new' behavior in C++26. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116332 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
