Hello everybody.
Commits r140454 and r140461 from Sebastian Redl,
seem to hint that some work is in progress to implement
C++11 initializer lists.
Is this true?
I'm asking this because I'm going to start my undergraduate thesis
work, which is planned to focus on improving source-code
fidelity of initializer lists representation in clang's AST.
See "Coherent encoding of expressions occurring in initializers"
at the beginning of my GSoC proposal at:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-April/014451.html
If someone is going to refactor this part of the parser to implement
C++11 generalized initialization syntax, I have to move my thesis
on something else.
This is not a problem per se, but I need to know. Also, will the
new implementation fix the current problems that clang has
in this areas?
Thank you,
Nicola
Hello everybody.
Commits r140454 and r140461 from Sebastian Redl,
seem to hint that some work is in progress to implement
C++11 initializer lists.
Is this true?
Yes.
I'm asking this because I'm going to start my undergraduate thesis
work, which is planned to focus on improving source-code
fidelity of initializer lists representation in clang's AST.
See "Coherent encoding of expressions occurring in initializers"
at the beginning of my GSoC proposal at:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-April/014451.html
If someone is going to refactor this part of the parser to implement
C++11 generalized initialization syntax, I have to move my thesis
on something else.
This is not a problem per se, but I need to know. Also, will the
new implementation fix the current problems that clang has
in this areas?
My work is orthogonal to the actual AST representation of initializer lists. I don't expect to change it. (I do believe I will change the representation initializers in general a tiny bit.) So I believe there should be nothing stopping you from doing your thesis - in fact I would welcome any improvement in the AST representation.
Sebastian