rZhBoYao marked an inline comment as done. rZhBoYao added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Sema/Sema.h:2899-2909 + /// C++ [dcl.fct.def.general]p1 + /// function-body: + /// = delete ; + /// = default ; + Delete, + Default, + ---------------- ChuanqiXu wrote: > Agree to @erichkeane With all due respect, this code suggestion doesn't make any sense to me. My best guess is @ChuanqiXu was thinking the order specified by the grammar as noted in [[ https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.fct.def.general#nt:function-body | dcl.fct.def.general p1 ]]. Even if that was the case, `CompoundStmt` is not quite right either. Also, differentiating `ctor-initializer[opt] compound-statement` and `function-try-block` is meaningless here, hence the name `Other`. I adopted the same order as to how `Parser::ParseFunctionDefinition` has always been parsing `function-body`. The order is not significant in any meaningful way as each of the 4 grammar productions of `function-body` is VERY different and mutually exclusive. Putting `Delete` and `Default` upfront not only emphasizes the "specialness" of them but also conveys how we handle `function-body`. What say you, @erichkeane ? CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D122981/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D122981 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
