> On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/30/2015 01:31 PM, John McCall wrote: >>> On Sep 29, 2015, at 8:42 PM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> There's also the question of whether the non-transaction-safe function type >>> is substitutable in this mangling. I think we might as well allow it, as >>> we do for cv-qualified types. >> >> Hmm. To me, this seems much more like a ref-qualifier or a cv method >> qualifier, which we do not make independently substitutable. > > It's like them in that it comes at the end of the declarator, but it is > unlike them in that they modify the 'this' parameter.
Well, ref-qualifiers don’t. > It's like cv-quals in that there is a standard conversion to change the > qualifier under a pointer. That’s true, it is separable from the value. I guess I’m fine with making this a substitution candidate. John. _______________________________________________ cxx-abi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://sourcerytools.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cxx-abi-dev
