Address "implementation-defined" literal and type values #944
Conversation
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
In [this thread](#911 (comment)) on #911, @macchiati and I discussed the handling of implementation-defined literal values and implementation-defined types. This change splits the "MAY _accept_" for these two cases, permitting both and saving us having to say "... or an implementation-defined value..." in lots of places.
aphillips
requested review from
catamorphism,
echeran,
eemeli,
macchiati and
mihnita
eemeli
requested changes
Nov 17, 2024
|
@eemeli notes:
This is a good point. I need to read the section and think about how/whether to modify here. |
macchiati
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
eemeli
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
Co-authored-by: Eemeli Aro <[email protected]>
mihnita
approved these changes
Nov 18, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
In this thread on #911, @macchiati and I discussed the handling of implementation-defined literal values and implementation-defined types.
This change splits the "MAY accept" for these two cases, permitting both and saving us having to say "... or an implementation-defined value..." in lots of places.