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? To directly answer your question: I'd want a reasonably strong signal from WG21 that that's the direction they want to pursue before we implement something like that, especially because it changes the meaning of some constructs while leaving them valid, which will create some churn for people living at head especially if we then roll that change back again. (I think we did have a strong enough signal to early-adopt the `decltype(id)` handling.) 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
