rsmith added a comment. In D119136#3463888 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136#3463888>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> @rsmith @aaron.ballman Do you think it's worth resubmitting this patch with a > look ahead of the `mutable` keyword (this seems to me a better strategy than > other flimsy workaround suggested/tried), or would you rather wait for WG21 > to come up with something? In principle, I think it would be reasonable to put this change behind a language option with a `-f` flag, and enable it by default only in C++23 mode, while WG21 sorts out what they want to do. But this patch is making some substantial changes in terms of how much code is moved around -- do you think it's feasible to support both modes without a lot of additional complexity? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D119136 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
