One week and no additional comments... I'm going to submit this patch now,
incorporating the wording change suggested by Eli ("member declaration does
not match because it %select{is|is not}0 const qualified" instead of "member
declaration %select{has|lacks}0 const keyword").Cheers, Kaelyn On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> >> What about (based on Eli's example): "member declaration does not match >> because it %select{is|is not}N const qualified" >> >> It seems good to have the message explicitly indicate in which direction >> the error was made, and we can use select to avoid over complex emission >> code... >> > > Yup, already using a %select in the diagnostic to be able to explicitly > indicate the direction of the mismatch. My comment wasn't directed at Eli's > example but more a general comment that I trying to come up with a message > for which I could use %select. If folks are fine with the wording Eli > suggested then I'll use that and submit the patch. ;) >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
