hamzasood added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/FixIt/fixit-cxx0x.cpp:57
(void)[&, &i, &i]{}; // expected-error 2{{'&' cannot precede a capture when
the capture default is '&'}}
- (void)[=, this]{ this->g(5); }; // expected-error{{'this' cannot be
explicitly captured}}
(void)[i, i]{ }; // expected-error{{'i' can appear only once in a capture
list}}
----------------
rjmccall wrote:
> hamzasood wrote:
> > rjmccall wrote:
> > > Shouldn't you only be accepting this in C++2a mode?
> > I'm not sure what the system is with allowing future language features as
> > extensions, but I noticed that [*this] capture is allowed as an extension
> > pre-C++17 so I figured it would make sense for [=, this] to also be allowed
> > as an extension (since the proposal mentions how it's meant to increase
> > code clarify in the presence of [*this]).
> Surely there should at least be an on-by-default extension warning? The
> behavior we're using sounds a lot more like we're treating this as a bug-fix
> in the standard than a new feature. Richard, can you weigh in here?
The extension warning for this (ext_equals_this_lambda_capture_cxx2a) is on by
default.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D36572
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
