SaurabhJha added a comment. In D106005#2904424 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005#2904424>, @fhahn wrote:
> In D106005#2896080 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005#2896080>, @SaurabhJha > wrote: > >> In D106005#2895716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005#2895716>, @fhahn wrote: >> >>> Thank you very much for working on this! Are you planning on implementing >>> the new specification as well? It would probably be good to land the update >>> to the spec in close succession to the implementation, to avoid confusing >>> users. >> >> Yes, that's my plan. Once this is in, I will start working on the >> implementation right away. > > Ok cool! I think the latest version looks good (modulo making sure the new > lines are limited to 80 chars per line). @rjmccall can you think of any > scenarios where defining initializers with one expression and broadcasting > them might cause issues? > > With respect to ordering the patches, I think it would be good to put up a > patch implementing the newly added parts, commit it and then land the patch > that adds it to the docs. WDYT? Yeah, sounds good. I will create a patch for implementing initialisation. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D106005 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
