On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Any particular reason you were trying to avoid that? I expect it'd probably make for better diagnostic text (as Eli was suggesting - though admittedly we haven't quite arrived at the ideal text yet) but I expect it'd also be nice to add fixits too & those would differ between the two cases (if we chose a consistent approach - eg: always assume the original declaration is correct so issue a fixit to fix the definition (by adding or removing const)). - David
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
