From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 102323858C53; Fri,  2 Dec 2022 23:55:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 102323858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670025305;
	bh=whUqFZEVsNT6TJ7jdT6pX0PQt2R5jIRrmKmzgFNDDF0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=poyX8TAu9dMtQrgVkpLAUXdjv7QT779bNkfbEO7/rPDyUyxzmsm0DlhsPd17SfJwq
	 BV5FDhFi5v7Ev/xi6Xc9SihIwSxf4rIrGc0IRsGp96N5D5B0HeLhtK+DSoo5bZQvsE
	 R+RAljwgB3ONWvhDwhNuJMqeZqnH23t3H6Gj7ooA=
From: "majerech.o at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/107953] Greater-than operator misparsed inside a lambda
 expression used as a template argument
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 23:55:03 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: majerech.o at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107953-4-ISd5Jhrg4Y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107953-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107953-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107953

--- Comment #4 from Ond=C5=99ej Majerech <majerech.o at gmail dot com> ---
It seems that the core of PR 57 is that `A<T` could syntactically be a valid
expression, and it would require a look-up to determine that A and T are in
fact a template and a type, and not values.

Here, however, the fragment `[] (int x, int y) { return x` doesn't form a
syntactically valid expression. So, to me at least, it seems there should b=
e no
ambiguity.=