tbaeder added a comment. In D150364#4335282 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364#4335282>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D150364#4335261 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364#4335261>, @tbaeder wrote: > >> In D150364#4335221 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364#4335221>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> "Unsupported" is a bit of a loaded term -- it could mean "this operation is >>> not supported, YET" or it could mean "this operation is not and will not be >>> supported, EVER". Perhaps something more like "InvalidInConstantExpr" would >>> be more descriptive? >> >> I guess it would be more descriptive, but it could still mean that it is >> "not yet valid in a constant expression", so I guess I don't see the upside >> of using a longer opcode name. > > I don't feel strongly; it's easy enough to rename if we think it's causing > confusion. FWIW, my first thought was "Oh, we're planning to support throw > expressions in constant expressions? Please don't tell WG21." I'm used to > seeing "invalid" for things that are never valid and "unsupported" for things > that aren't supported but might be someday. However, I also see we use > "unsupported" in the same sense you're using it here in some of our > diagnostics, so I'm fine with whatever you want to go with. I didn't know about that distinction, renaming to `invalid` is fine with me. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150364 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
