================ @@ -1637,10 +1637,8 @@ def err_inline_namespace_std : Error< def err_unexpected_friend : Error< "friends can only be classes or functions">; def ext_enum_friend : ExtWarn< - "befriending enumeration type %0 is a C++11 extension">, InGroup<CXX11>; -def warn_cxx98_compat_enum_friend : Warning< - "befriending enumeration type %0 is incompatible with C++98">, - InGroup<CXX98Compat>, DefaultIgnore; + "elaborated enumeration type cannot be a friend">, ---------------- Endilll wrote:
I can't say I particularly like any of the three ideas suggested: > A friend enumeration type cannot be declared using an elaborated type > specifier > An elaborated type specifier starting with 'enum' cannot be declared as a > friend I find both not too actionable for people out of the loop on the Standard. Among those two options, I prefer the latter. > ISO C++ does not permits this declaration to be declared as friend because > 'enum E' is an elaborated specifier. This is somewhat better, but isn't there an implication that elaborated type specifiers are not permitted in friend declarations? > should we leave the current wording for the time being? Sorry, I don't find the current wording `elaborated enumeration type cannot be a friend` acceptable. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/80171 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
