Fantastic. I've been working through some of the other new C++11 features
(auto, for-range and alias-declaration so far) and would love to see more
people working on this stuff.
As far as I'm aware, the late-specified return types feature is complete,
other than updating the external website. I fixed all the issues I could
find with it and added a bunch of tests as part of the 'auto' work. We're
already advertising support for it via __has_feature(cxx_trailing_return).
(One minor thing: we don't appear to have any tests checking that we
create the correct mangled names).
[...]
Richard
It seems this reply arrived only to me:
Fantastic. I’ve been working through some of the other new C++11 features
(auto, for-range and alias-declaration so far) and would love to see more
people working on this stuff.
As far as I’m aware, the late-specified return types feature is complete,
other than updating the external website. I fixed all the issues I could
find with it and added a bunch of tests as part of the ‘auto’ work. We’re
already advertising support for it via __has_feature(cxx_trailing_return).
(One minor thing: we don’t appear to have any tests checking that we
create the correct mangled names).
I see! I didn’t know that.
Anyway, I think another feature that would be needed is
‘local classes in template parameters’, I should include it in the proposal.
Anyway, someone had news about the rumored patch from ‘alp’?
I’m going to push this proposal to melange since the GSoC students application
deadline is near.
Anybody would like to mentor this idea?
Bye,
Nicola
We have bugs in the area of name mangling for late-specified return types. In particular, we don't implement name-mangling rules for references to function parameters in the late-specified return type.
- Doug