On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Yes, that seems unambiguous. > 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. I'd fall on the side of 'hidden' because I prefer standard wording where possible. Pity about the existing convention, though. - David _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
