ilya-biryukov added a comment.
In D72498#1814366 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498#1814366>, @sammccall wrote:
> @ilya-biryukov @kadircet what do you think about unwrapping decltype only
> when it's a return value (optional: of a function whose leading return type
> is auto) to narrowly catch this idiom?
If we feel it's useful in the function return type, it's probably also useful
in other template contexts:
E.g.
template <class T>
struct X {
typedef decltype(T() + T()) add_result_type;
};
X<int>::^add_result_type y;
And I don't think it's used in practice in more contexts.
Moreover, I believe usages in function returns will become more rare as
projects move to C++14 and beyond (`auto` return type gives the same results in
most interesting cases without code duplication).
Therefore, I'd not special-case for function return types.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
