bob.wilson added a comment. > I do like the explicit nature of this approach, but I'm worried about it > being too novel. For instance, would this compel GCC to implement a similar > parsing feature since they also support the deprecated attribute, that sort > of thing. Also, it feels like a bit of an odd design in C and C++ since > nothing else in the language supports argument passing by name like that (and > I would really hate to see us use = blah only to find out that C++ someday > standardizes on something different).
This makes sense to me. We also want to add this to the "availability" attribute, and since that already uses named arguments, I think we should use the "replacement=" syntax there. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17865 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
