Draft
Conversation
Owner
It is, but this PR is a good starting point cause its a lot easier to understand. And yeah dont worry about the scope naming, theyre all just made up names with some very rough/vague patterns. |
Author
|
How about |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #677.
I'm not happy with the
->being mistagged, but I'm also not excited about fixing it for pack-index-specifier while keeping it broken for decltype-specifier (see computed-type-specifier, simple-type-specifier, type-specifier, type-specifier-seq, type-id, trailing-return-type), and I'm not sure if trying to update the pattern inqualified_typeis the right approach.Also I'll need help with scope naming because I don't understand the naming scheme.