jkorous added a comment. In D58934#1418043 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D58934#1418043>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> 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> I hear you :D > 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 I had the same exact idea but since I wasn't able to find any existing function I just followed your lead for now. But I assume we can just factor out this later. 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
