On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Eli Friedman <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 4:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reviewers: chandlerc, > > > > > > > > Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5167048/ > > > > Affected files: > > M include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticSemaKinds.td > > M lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp > > M test/SemaCXX/function-redecl.cpp > > M test/SemaCXX/nested-name-spec.cpp > > I don't really like the wording "member declaration has const > keyword"; there is no guarantee that the note points anywhere near the > keyword "const", and you've lost the "nearly matches" part of the > original diagnostic. Maybe something more like "member declaration > does not match because it is const qualified"? > Yeah, I was having trouble coming up with wording that would work both when the declaration being diagnosed doesn't have a "const" but one of the matched decls does, and when the matched decl doesn't but the decl being diagnosed does. In particular I was trying to avoid having those two cases being two separate Diag statements under two branches of an if statement. Cheers, Kaelyn > > The code looks fine. > > -Eli >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
