================
@@ -230,6 +230,37 @@ namespace cwg211 { // cwg211: 2.7
};
} // namespace cwg211
+namespace cwg212 { // cwg212: yes
----------------
Endilll wrote:
> Has this changed to mean just "we don't know when we started supporting this"
> instead?
I've definitely seen this interpretations in PRs that added DR tests without
fixing anything. I pushed them in the direction of actually figuring out at
which point Clang started to work the way the wording suggests.
> I don't think that's an improvement: saying "2.7" here suggests that version
> 2.6 did something else, and a change was made in 2.7 to fix this, which isn't
> really true.
I don't disagree, but I've seen DRs like CWG182, which had `yes` status, but it
turned out that anyone with Clang 13 or earlier didn't get the behavior
described in the response. While `Clang 2.7` can give a wrong impression to
people who don't know that this was the first version with C++ support that
didn't require GCC, getting out of habit of slapping `yes` on tests made DR
status page more useful to assess conformance.
> But if that's what we're doing now, I guess it makes sense to be consistent
> with that.
I'm taking full blame for the changes made in this area in the past couple of
years, as I was the one pushing them. But specifying the version would indeed
be more consistent with status quo. I see there are 3 `Yes` statuses on the
page, which is my overlook.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/165633
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
