On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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've committed the new wording as r155723 :) > > > 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
