Sorry for weighing in so late, but some of the messages don't seem quite right
to me. A "single" could help a lot for some of these cases (suggested fixes in
brackets):
> too few arguments to function call, [single] argument 'a' was not specified
Without the "single" I feel like this is a warning for /any/ "too few args"
situation that's only missing one arg (e.g. 2 for 3).
> candidate function not viable: requires [single] argument 'n', but 2
> [arguments] were provided
This doesn't feel like valid English as written. Two whats? ("I was going to go
to the state of Hawaii, but I went to two instead.") And here the "single"
really underscores that the problem is too many arguments.
> candidate function not viable: requires[*] at most argument 'n', but 2
> [arguments] were provided
* s/requires/allows? In this specific case of "0 or 1" it seems more fitting;
not sure about the other "at most" warnings. Also "arguments", same as above.
> candidate function not viable: requires at least argument 'n', but none[*]
> were provided
s/none/no arguments/, same as above.
Also, why no version for err_typecheck_call_too_many_args, since the overload
resolution gets one for too many args?
> too many arguments to function call, expected single argument 'n', have 2
> [arguments]
Here I could go either way on including the last "arguments", since it was
already stated at the beginning.
What do you think?
Jordy
On May 11, 2012, at 1:18, Richard Smith wrote:
> Great, thanks for working on this! Committed as r156607.
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Terry Long <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've added more test coverage, removed deprecated methods, and extended the
> enhancement to the 'candidate function not viable' diagnostic for C++.
>
> Patch version 2 attached.
>
> -Terry Long
>
>
>
>
> Am 10.05.2012 um 19:17 schrieb Richard Smith:
>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Terry Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > The patch generally looks good, thanks!
>>
>> Great, thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> > Presumably this only applies to the case where there are no arguments,
>> > because otherwise we couldn't know /which/ argument was missing?
>>
>> Yes, only for the case where there are no arguments to a function that takes
>> 1 argument. Almost impossible to determine the missing argument(s) otherwise.
>>
>> > Please add test coverage for the
>> > err_typecheck_call_too_few_args_at_least_one diagnostic. Also,
>> > NamedDecl::getNameAsString is deprecated; please just use "<<
>> > FDecl->getParamDecl(0)", and use getParamDecl(0)->getDeclName()'s operator
>> > bool() in the test, rather than empty().
>>
>> OK, I'll update this. I was using the online doxygen docs and didn't see any
>> deprecation warnings. Anywhere where I can find that information?
>>
>> It's in include/clang/AST/Decl.h:138-141, though for some reason those
>> comments aren't exposed to doxygen...
>>
>> > It would also be great to extend this to the 'candidate function not
>> > viable' diagnostics in C++.
>>
>> I can take a look at this too.
>>
>> Awesome, thanks.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
