dblaikie added a comment. From the discussion on the issue:
> Do we want this loosening of the restriction to apply to *only* `std` and the > same followed by a number, or to any reserved identifier used in a module? > e.g., > > module std; // error today, but will become a warning > module _Test; // error today, but do we want this to become a warning as > well? > > my thinking is we probably want all of these to be warnings because it'd be > hard to explain why `std` is reserved but with a warning while `_Test` is > reserved but with an error. Yeah, I'd treat them equally - while we could subset the reserved names and allow implementations to only use a subset (while leaving the rest as an error for both implementations and consumers alike) that doesn't feel in keeping with the purpose of these names - to be usable by /someone/ and so necessary to allow them to be used. (hmm - there's some discussion in the description about the fact that this error was already suppressed in "system headers" - why was that suppression inadequate for system implementation modules? (& does that suppression for reserved names risk being over-broad, since every third party library installed on a system is generally considered a "system header", even if they aren't part of the implementation?)) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146986/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146986 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
