On 07/30/2014 04:44 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Why not do this in cp_parser_id_expression?
I did mention this in the original mail, is this definitely the way it
should be done? Andrew pointed this out to me before sending in the
patch, my initial investigation into doing so seemed to show it would
require more changes than doing it later since that would mean that
cp_parser_id_expression has another possible return type (to be fair, I
didn't carry out a full implementation). What I'm doing is equivalent
to the point where function templates are instantiated so it could go
either way, but from what I understand the only reason function
templates are handled like that is because of overload resolution? My
implementation strategy thus far has been to mirror function templates
as long as possible.
- Braden Obrzut
