C2Y: member access clarification - #147
Conversation
Every compiler does this anyway https://godbolt.org/z/o1zqcrddG Signed-off-by: Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at>
|
Could you please add MSVC to the list as well? And just remove the 16.4 version of Xcode, making this feature complete. |
Signed-off-by: Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at>
|
I wonder whether we should just remove entries that are not really feature but essentially wording cleanups? |
|
I'm for it, especially if they're behaviors that were always implemented by all major toolchains anyway. I recently removed various C++ papers that were just wordings/clarifications, since they would just clutter the tables. We can do the same for C, although C has fewer features in general and serves a different niche than C++, so they could be tolerable. I think we can leave the features in for now, and then remove all the irrelevant ones at once during a larger review session later. Edit: For protocol, I have created Issue #150. |
|
So you want those fixes or not? |
|
Which fixes? This PR has been merged. |
|
It seems you have reset the branch here, or did I miss something: https://github.com/cppstat/cppstat |
|
Thanks for letting me know, seems like the merges got mixed up with my local, unpublished changes. I've pushed your contributions up again. |
|
Ah, good. I thought I was pushing something you didn't like. Should I create pull requests or push some changes directly? |
|
All good, it was just my bad. Since you're an author on various proposals, I've given you write access. PRs are preferred, since the CI may catch typos and invalid input in general. You can merge your own PRs as you wish. |
2 participants
Every compiler does this anyway
https://godbolt.org/z/o1zqcrddG