rjmccall added a comment. In D95691#2540619 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691#2540619>, @rsmith wrote:
> In D95691#2540450 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691#2540450>, @rjmccall wrote: > >> The warning is a bit weird. If we don't think it's certain that the >> committee will adopt this syntax, I don't think we should add this patch at >> all; it is not really acceptable to add it and then treat it as a Clang >> extension if the committee rejects it. If we do think it's certain, we >> should go ahead and consider this a feature of the next major standard. > > I think it's quite unlikely that the committee would reject the feature at > this stage. Seems OK to me to jump the gun slightly and call this a C++23 > extension. SGTM, then. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95691 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
