aaronpuchert added a comment. In D100733#2760890 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2760890>, @mizvekov wrote:
> - I still think a new value category is simpler than the two phase overload > resolution it replaces :D Not sure if it's simpler, but it'll produce less confusing results. > - This new value category would (so far as this is only an experiment I am > running), only apply to standards older than c++23, where from then on it's > just the current categories and the rules as in P2266 > <https://reviews.llvm.org/P2266>. > - Even in the old standards it replaces, it does not introduce any drastic > changes. This new category is the same as XValues as far as overload > resolution is concerned (with the small addition that it binds less > preferentially to non-const l-value references), and as far as type deduction > goes, it behaves exactly as LValues. A new value category feels like a global change for a local problem. We can explain the behavior that we want without introducing a new value category: either as a “combined” overload resolution for xvalue and lvalue, where all candidates for the xvalue are strictly better than any candidate for the lvalue, or as a two-phase resolution that falls back only if there are no candidates. These explanations are equivalent. In D100733#2761031 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2761031>, @rsmith wrote: > What do we think about renaming `isRValue()` to `isPRValue()` and renaming > `VK_RValue` to `VK_PRValue`, adding a "real" `isRValue()`, and then > performing this cleanup? One problem might be that C and C++ have different terminology, right? I like the idea of going with prvalue instead of rvalue, then it's the right thing for C++ and if you're coming from the C world it's at least not confusing. But perhaps I would not introduce for now an `isRValue` function. (Although C doesn't have xvalues, so maybe it doesn't matter?) In D100733#2761052 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733#2761052>, @mizvekov wrote: > Is there any special reason we ended up in this state of affairs with the > swapped out names? My impression is that some people didn't like the changes that came with C++11 and that it made the terminology of C and C++ somewhat inconsistent. (Though I think you can work with the C++ terminology in C, there are just no xvalues, but you can't work the other way around.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100733 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
