On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> When a lambda expression omits the return type information, the >> standard requires the lambda statement body to be a single return >> statement. However, as a language extension, we (and several other >> compilers) support determining the return type if all of the >> function's return types agree. >> >> The problem is, the wording for the warning we emit is a bit difficult >> to parse. It's a semantically correct statement, but it's not >> immediately obvious what the problem is or how to rectify it. >> Consider: >> >> auto i = []() { static const int foo = 12; return &foo; }(); >> >> This will emit a diagnostic that says "C++11 requires lambda with >> omitted result type to consist of a single return statement" -- >> however, a likely initial response to this is "but I do only have a >> single return statement!" >> >> This patch rewords the diagnostic to be a bit more clear (hopefully): >> "C++11 requires a lambda expression with omitted result type to >> consist solely of a return statement" >> >> Thoughts? > > > I would be in favor of removing the warning entirely, now that Clang 3.1 has > shipped. The C++ core working group has already agreed that this should be > allowed. It's currently under consideration by the evolution working group, > whom I think are unlikely to say no -- and if they do, we will have time to > react before 3.2 is released.
That would certainly work as well -- is there a general preference one way or the other? ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
