faisalv added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:5466
+ /// ActOnLambdaTemplateParameterList - This is called after parsing
+ /// the explicit template parameter list (if it exists) in C++2a.
----------------
Avoid listing the name of the function: replace a w a \brief comment.
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1112
+ ParseScope TemplateParamScope(this, Scope::TemplateParamScope);
+ if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus2a && Tok.is(tok::less)) {
----------------
We always create a template parameter scope here - but it's only the right
scope if we have explicit template parameters, correct?
What I think we should do here is :
- factor out (preferably as a separate patch) the post
explicit-template-parameter-list parsing into a separate function (F1) which is
then called from here.
- then in this patch factor out the explicit template-parameter-list parsing
also into a separate function that then either calls the function above ('F1'),
or sequenced these statements before a call to 'F1'
- also since gcc has had explicit template parameters on their generic
lambdas for a while, can we find out under what options they have it enabled,
and consider enabling it under those options for our gcc emulation mode? (or
add a fixme for it?)
- should we enable these explicit template parameters for pre-C++2a modes and
emit extension/compatibility warnings where appropriate?
================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1123
+ Diag(RAngleLoc,
+ diag::err_expected_lambda_template_parameter_list);
+ }
----------------
I think it might be more user friendly if you used a different error message
for the <> case here - along the lines of: empty template parameter list is not
allowed
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36527
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
