[PATCH] D36527: Implemented P0428R2 - Familiar template syntax for generic lambdas

[Faisal Vali via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

faisalv added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Parse/ParseExprCXX.cpp:1112
 
+  ParseScope TemplateParamScope(this, Scope::TemplateParamScope);
+  if (getLangOpts().CPlusPlus2a && Tok.is(tok::less)) {
----------------
hamzasood wrote:
> faisalv wrote:
> > We always create a template parameter scope here - but it's only the right scope if we have explicit template parameters, correct?
> > 
> > What I think we should do here is :
> >   - factor out (preferably as a separate patch) the post explicit-template-parameter-list parsing into a separate function (F1) which is then called from here.
> >   - then in this patch factor out the explicit template-parameter-list parsing also into a separate function that then either calls the function above ('F1'), or sequenced these statements before a call to 'F1'
> >   - also since gcc has had explicit template parameters on their generic lambdas for a while, can we find out under what options they have it enabled, and consider enabling it under those options for our gcc emulation mode? (or add a fixme for it?)
> >   - should we enable these explicit template parameters for pre-C++2a modes and emit extension/compatibility warnings where appropriate?
> > 
> Good point. It isn’t the “wrong” scope in the sense that is breaks anything, but it is a bit wasteful to unconditionally push a potentially unneeded scope.
> 
> I have another idea that could be less intrusive, which is to replace this line and the start of the if statement with:
> 
>   bool HasExplicitTemplateParams = getLangOpts().CPlusPlus2a && Tok.is(tok::less);
>   ParseScope TemplateParamScope(this, Scope::TemplateParamScope, HasExplicitTemplateParams);
>   if (HasExplicitTemplateParams) {
>     // same code as before
>   }
> 
> That way the scope is only entered when needed, but no restructuring is required (which I personally think would make things a bit harder to follow). Could that work?
good idea - i think that should work too.  (Although i do still like the idea of refactoring this long function via extract-method - but i can always do that refactoring post this patch). 


https://reviews.llvm.org/D36527