On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:48 PM Richard Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 13:22, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits
> wrote:
>>
>> tl;dr: our Clang "get involved" page implies that proposed extensions
>> to Clang must also be proposed to a standards committee
>>
On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 13:22, Aaron Ballman via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> tl;dr: our Clang "get involved" page implies that proposed extensions
> to Clang must also be proposed to a standards committee
> (https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html#criteria). This is a good
>
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 4:48 PM Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> FWIW, I like your new wording (and rationale for it) better than the old
> wording. Of course I've got a conflict of interest, because of P1144
> [[trivially_relocatable]] and P2266 "Simpler implicit move" and so on. ;)
Hi Aaron,
FWIW, I like your new wording (and rationale for it) better than the old
wording. Of course I've got a conflict of interest, because of P1144
[[trivially_relocatable]] and P2266 "Simpler implicit move" and so on. ;)
This sentence in particular, though...
> Clang should drive the
tl;dr: our Clang "get involved" page implies that proposed extensions
to Clang must also be proposed to a standards committee
(https://clang.llvm.org/get_involved.html#criteria). This is a good
goal, but is not inclusive or something we enforce with any
consistency. I'm proposing to clarify our
