ayzhao added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/DeclSpec.h:1806
+// typename is allowed (C++2a [temp.res]p5]).
+enum class ImplicitTypenameContext {
+ No,
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Not opposed to this construct, but I am worried about how well it will scale.
> I don't know that we want to add a bunch of named enums that all boil down to
> a bool. (If someone thinks they have good ideas here, that'd be a good RFC
> topic for Discourse because we have a ton of interfaces that take a bunch of
> bools.)
Ack. IIRC this `enum` was created as a result of [this
comment](https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847?id=198139#inline-545979) by @rsmith
expressing concern over adding an additional `bool` parameter to a function
with a lot of preexisting `bool` args.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D53847
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
