rsmith added a comment. In D84048#2164950 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048#2164950>, @erichkeane wrote:
> Additionally, I sent out a CWG message on the reflector about this: > https://godbolt.org/z/bEr61T > > My implementation has this as ambiguous, but the wording makes it well-formed > I think. I don't think that was the intent of CWG2303, so unless they > confirm that this was their intent (or that I'm wrong), I'll leave this patch > as is. Let's wait to hear back. Either option seems plausible here. The wording as written behaves the same way as name shadowing in member name lookup, so it may be intentional. ================ Comment at: clang/test/CXX/drs/dr23xx.cpp:118 +#if __cplusplus >= 201103L +namespace dr2303 { +template <typename... T> ---------------- This should include a comment that `make_cxx_dr_status` can parse, such as `// dr2303: 11` to indicate support in Clang 11 onwards. ================ Comment at: clang/www/cxx_dr_status.html:13636 <td>Partial ordering and recursive variadic inheritance</td> - <td class="none" align="center">Unknown</td> + <td class="full" align="center">Yes</td> </tr> ---------------- This is a generated file; use `make_cxx_dr_status` in the same directory to regenerate it. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D84048 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
