dblaikie added a comment. In D91311#2400926 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2400926>, @ldionne wrote:
> In D91311#2400917 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311#2400917>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> How would that work for users - they would get error messages from the >> compiler using type names that don't exist in the source code? I'd have >> thought that would be quite confusing. > > Yes, if a library author decides to say something like: > > template<class _CharT, class _Traits> > class [[preferred_name(basic_string_view<char>, "ahaha I'm such a troll")]] > basic_string_view { > ... > }; > > Then you might get compiler errors that are not super helpful. I don't think > the fact that such nonsense is doable means that we shouldn't give this > control to library authors. It's certainly a cost/risk to weigh against the benefits. (both intentional weird uses like that, but also accidental misuses like typos). > For instance, I can easily imagine a library that provides an API where some > types shouldn't be named (for example expression templates). In that case, > you might want to describe a type by a string along the lines of > `decltype(some-expression)`, which could potentially be a lot more useful > than the ability to refer to a typedef. Does this sort of usage ring true to > someone else? A concrete/real-world example might be helpful, if you happen to have one on hand. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D91311 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
