RFC: Lets just call it C++26 and forget about the C++2c business (at least, internally)

Clang Frontend
3

In general I agree that using the 26 name seems safe; WG21 has proven they can manage time based releases. Especially the renaming of LO.CPlusPlus2b to LO.CPlusPlus23 can cause issue since it’s part of the interface (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D149554). (I also had a talk about his with @ldionne yesterday, he will post more on that,)

I’ve already created a draft patch (using c++2c everywhere) https://reviews.llvm.org/D149875 .

I’ll keep it in draft until this RFC has concluded.

2 Likes