On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain <[email protected]> wrote: > > +void Bar(int); // expected-note{{non-type 'Bar' shadowing class 'Bar' > declared here}} > > To me this sort of reads strangely - "non-type 'Bar' shadowing (class > 'Bar' declared here)" rather than "non-type 'Bar' shadowing (class > 'Bar') declared here" - but perhaps I'm being pedantic. "class 'Bar' > shadows non-type 'Bar' declared here" feels more clear to me, but does > still suffer from the same ambiguity... > I suggested earlier on IRC: "class 'Bar' is hidden by a non-type declaration of 'Bar' here". Does that read better to you? I'm torn between 'hidden' and 'shadowed' -- I think the former is clearer (and is the standard term), but the latter is already used in other diagnostics and -Wshadow.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
