klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D35743#841197, @chh wrote:
> Daniel, Manuel, I will take over this CL since Yan has finished his > internship at Google., > Yan's latest patch to tryToParseLambda looks acceptable to me. > I think it should take care of new kw_auto in additional to kw_new, > ke_delete, etc. > > Could you suggest if there is any better way to handle the new syntax? An alternative would be to look for auto (&&?)? [ with look-ahead, but I agree that this fits the "we try to parse a lambda introducer with look-behind" strategy we've so far been taking, so I'm fine with this approach. https://reviews.llvm.org/D35743 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
