*that* easy...
Try a bit harder to disambiguate. This is mostly straightforward, but for
=-style initializers, we actually need to know where an expression ends:
[foo = bar baz]
is a message send, whereas
[foo = bar + baz]
is a lambda-introducer. Handle this by parsing the expression eagerly, and
replacing it with an annotation token. By chance, we use the *exact same*
parsing rules in both cases (except that we need to assume we're inside a
message send for the parse, to turn off various forms of inapplicable
error recovery).
llvm-svn: 182432
a FieldDecl from it, and propagate both into the closure type and the
LambdaExpr.
You can't do much useful with them yet -- you can't use them within the body
of the lambda, because we don't have a representation for "the this of the
lambda, not the this of the enclosing context". We also don't have support or a
representation for a nested capture of an init-capture yet, which was intended
to work despite not being allowed by the current standard wording.
llvm-svn: 181985
designator" diagnostic with more correct and more human-friendly "cannot take
address of rvalue of type 'T'".
For the case of & &T::f, provide a custom diagnostic, rather than unhelpfully
saying "cannot take address of rvalue of type '<overloaded function type>'".
For the case of &array_temporary, treat it just like a class temporary
(including allowing it as an extension); the existing diagnostic wording
for the class temporary case works fine.
llvm-svn: 174262
Richard Smith