https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Adam Butcher from comment #4) > (In reply to Michele Caini from comment #3) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? > > > > I suspect it should be rejected, unless it is an intended extension of the > > compiler (for which I've not been able to find the docs - in this case, a > > pedwarn should be emitted at least). > > It was an intended extension. Without it, a lambda argument cannot include > a non-type template parameter or name within its body (without decltype) a > type inferred from its arguments. Since it does not conflict with the > standard, it should be acceptable as a GCC extension. I didn't document it > at the time, however, or pedwarn about it. Possibly at the time it was > added the standard was still being finalized. > > We could leave this issue open to address the docs and pedwarn unless you > want to drop the feature completely? I think we should pedwarn; the committee may well add this syntax in the future.
