Andrew Sutton <andrew.n.sut...@gmail.com> writes:
| Attached is the stubbed out parsing for requires expressions. I plan
| on implementing semantics next.
See comments below.
| I haven't pushed this into a git branch since its a completely
| separate change from the previous patch. Should I create a new branch
| for separate work?
Unless it is fundamentally different, I would prefer that we have just
one branch to deal with.
| + // Concept extensions
| + case RID_REQUIRES:
| + return cp_parser_requires_expression (parser);
| +
I think you meant here "nested requirements", not "extensions" as in
"GNU extensions" or "vendor lock-ins". We should continue with "nested
requirements" then.
| /* Objective-C++ expressions. */
| case RID_AT_ENCODE:
| case RID_AT_PROTOCOL:
| @@ -21417,6 +21449,25 @@ cp_parser_label_declaration (cp_parser*
| cp_parser_require (parser, CPP_SEMICOLON, RT_SEMICOLON);
| }
| +//
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- //
| +// Requires Clause
| +
| +// Parse a requires clause.
| +//
| +// requires-clause:
| +// 'requires' constant-expression
| +//
| +static inline tree
| +cp_parser_requires_clause (cp_parser *parser)
| +{
| + // Parse the constant expression.
| + tree expr =
| + cp_parser_binary_expression (parser, false, false, PREC_NOT_OPERATOR,
NULL);
| + if (!require_potential_rvalue_constant_expression (expr))
| + return error_mark_node;
| + return expr;
The grammar says "constant-expression". You should use
cp_parser_constant_expression.
[...]
Patch OK, with the comments above.
-- Gaby
