http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13110
Richard Smith <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |[email protected] Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #8 from Richard Smith <[email protected]> --- Generally-speaking, we don't like inventing language extensions, because they create C++ dialects and so fragment the language. AFAIK, no other compiler accepts 'T &const', so there's no compatibility argument here, and no-one is proposing this for standardization. I'm also not even sure what you're proposing: is it that you want 'T &const' to be treated as 'T const&' (which I think is the "common newbie mistake" you're referring to), or that you want it to be treated as 'T &' (like 'const IntRef')? Both of these seem like bad answers. This does not meet the requirements for a Clang language extension (see http://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html) => WONTFIX. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________ LLVMbugs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmbugs
