aaron.ballman added a comment. In D95691#2540667 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691#2540667>, @rjmccall wrote:
> In D95691#2540619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691#2540619>, @rsmith wrote: > >> In D95691#2540450 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691#2540450>, @rjmccall wrote: >> >>> The warning is a bit weird. If we don't think it's certain that the >>> committee will adopt this syntax, I don't think we should add this patch at >>> all; it is not really acceptable to add it and then treat it as a Clang >>> extension if the committee rejects it. If we do think it's certain, we >>> should go ahead and consider this a feature of the next major standard. >> >> I think it's quite unlikely that the committee would reject the feature at >> this stage. Seems OK to me to jump the gun slightly and call this a C++23 >> extension. > > SGTM, then. That works for me as well -- I'd also be very surprised if the committee rejected the feature at this point. When I originally worked on the patch, the paper hadn't started its polling in Evolution yet and so it was less clear how it would be received. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
