MyDeveloperDay accepted this revision. MyDeveloperDay added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I'm not sure I personally would ever write code like that ;-) , but if its legal C++ and it compiles we should handle it the same as foo<1>,foo<true>,foo<!true> As there are a number of reviews out there for formatting Lambdas I think its a good idea for us to add corner cases like this to the unit tests, but it does get me thinking if this shouldn't be handled by a piece of code which knows about trailing return types (template or otherwise) and not be in the general Lambda parsing code I suspect that given that the switch statement handles tok::identifier, tok::less, tok::numeric_constant, tok::greater foo < 1 > We are effectively just consuming the return type tokens. But to handle what you have here it LGTM and handles more use cases that https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40910 would throw up. Thanks for helping out Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D58934/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D58934 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
