erichkeane wrote: > @erichkeane Nah, it's technically valid in C++23. There was no > deprecate/remove period because how unused/useless that feature is. (just > spell it T*)
Ah, oof! Thank you for clarifying. That is really unfortunate. I don't have a great idea on how to handle the transition. Are we finding that we have uses of this? If so, there is perhaps value to a warning diagnostic that it is changing (and re-enabling the old behavior?). Else, I wonder if we are OK being non-conforming in Pre-C++26 mode and just leaving this as an error, despite being valid code. A diagnostic to say "we know we aren't conforming here, but this changes meaning, so give this an identifier" is perhaps acceptable there? I don't have a great idea here as far as what appetite we have for accepting/disallowing the older meaning. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116332 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
