ldionne added a comment. In D111283#3056748 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283#3056748>, @rsmith wrote:
> Do you have examples showing what this does in practice for errors in > real-world code? I'm concerned that stripping back to the common type sugar > may produce an unintuitive result in some cases, although it certainly does > seem at least theoretically nice to use a commutative and associative > function to combine deductions like this. The kind of thing I'd be worried > about would be (eg) a container where the `iterator` and `const_iterator` are > the same, but where the common sugar of `T::iterator` and `T::const_iterator` > are some internal type that the user has never heard of. In general it seems > like this sugar stripping could result in types that are distant from the > user's code. As an extreme example, in the case where one of the types is > canonical and the other is not, it seems like stripping all the way back to > the canonical type would be worse than ignoring the canonical version of the > type and keeping the sugared version. FWIW, I believe in those cases the best tool might be some sort of attribute to treat an alias like a "strong typedef". Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D111283 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
