cor3ntin added a comment. > but right now I'm confused by the distinction… Why don't always evaluate the > message?
2 reasons - it would be a rather important breaking change for compiler who don't always use utf-8 at their literal encoding - we do not want to limit static_assert to the capabilities of the literal encoding. That oddity (there is no denying it's odd), was discussed by the C++ committee and we decided this was fine. However we did also consider supporting `char8_t*` in data, which would allow users to use evaluated utf-8 strings. We did decide against doing it right now but i suspect it will happen at some point. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154290/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154290 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
