#clang

[joompheart]

[crynwr-drwg]

Reachtongue Update

[Link to the website] Go to the site to see everything on one page. I would like to also credit one of my IRL friends who helped and wrote a lot of the "notes" you see in some of the tables, usually for people who aren't as familiar with linguistic terms, and also writing some of the Usage Notes you see.

I plan on accents being a huge part of all of this, with some groundwork already being laid out.

None of this is c0ompletely set in stone, of course, but it's groundwork for something in any case.

Below are some example entries:

And "known sentences"

[mymangamemes]

My friend: don't forget to bring the pot to the party tonight

My friend at the party:

From Love in the Palm of His Hand by Rin Teku

[acmeoop]

Now, What Am I Forgetting? I Know! “Slappy Goes Walnuts” (1993)

[creativecuquilu]

Well there goes another TFONE meme.

I was also thinking on doing the ROBLOX death sound and the metal pipe variants, but it'll let another one do them.

Also, if you pay a bit more attention, you can see sparks coming out of the punch Elita strikes Orion. and that's not even the first ones.

Can't this movie get any more beautiful? If it weren't for Orion's gorgeous, shiny blue eyes? He's not the only one!

[ohnoitsatrekkie]

It's the little things that let me know Clang still cares 🥰❤️

[constantinegeorgeo]

Few are ready for this truth nuke. IDE's are the worst thing ever thought of, dont use them.

[polkit-unofficial]

ALRIGHT HERE'S A FUN ONE FOR YALL

ALRIGHT SO

The behavior I want to talk about here is related to this proposal which was accepted into the standard for the... 2020 version? I think?

The behavior in question is the idea that, if you have a type whose copy constructor takes a nonconst reference to the object being copied, and try to aggregate it into a type like std::tuple, the program (prior to C++20) would not compile. The reason this happens is because std::tuple's copy constructor takes a const reference to the tuple being copied, but constness can't be upheld if the objects being stored in the tuple themselves are mutated upon being copied.

The proposal in question says that this behavior is dumb and in this case (like the code I wrote above) the program should still compile as long as no copies of the tuple in question take place.

According to the cpp compiler support table, GCC has "partial support" for this feature and clang has "full support."

However, if you try to compile the above program with, say, "g++ -Wall -Wextra test.cpp" you'll find that it works just fine. This isn't surprising, "partial implementation" means some instances of this behavior should work but what IS surprising is it even works if you do "g++ -std=c++17 -Wall -Wextra test.cpp" which... what? Isn't that before the feature was... implemented?

Okay whatever but what IS strange is that if you run "clang++ test.cpp" you get a compilation error??? I thought clang was supposed to fully support this feature?

(This is on g++ v15.2.1 and clang v21.1.6)

So yeah idk what's going on here lol :3

Moral of the story, don't have side effects in your copy constructors. Maybe. Idk lol :3