erichkeane added a comment. In D119544#3459169 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119544#3459169>, @tahonermann wrote:
>> I wouldn't think so either? In this case the problem is that 'u' is not in >> the re-manufactured scope, I think there is a bit of work to make sure that >> lambdas ALSO get the scope of their containing function, if they are in a >> functiondecl. > > I wouldn't expect lambdas to require special handling; I think they should be > handled via their transformation to a member function of a dependent local > class or dependent member class. Yeah, its not lambda-specific, thats just the example here. The example you gave offline shows that this is the case with a dependent local class as well. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119544/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119544 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
