philnik777 wrote: > > Thank you all for weighing in here. It seems there is some disagreement on > > how to move forward with this. I believe the current change addresses the > > initial issue this PR is tied to, which aimed to clarify this attribute > > affects more than just explicit specializations defined by users. > > I'm happy to make a change here to be more verbose like what > > @frederick-vs-ja suggested if that is what is preferred by the maintainers. > > @philnik777 Do you have any preference or opinion on how to proceed?
I'm OK with Fredericks wording. I'd also be fine with something like "user-defined explicit or partial specialization" https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143839 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
