Here's another patch which implements all of the suggested changes. -Terry
PR11857v3.patch
Description: Binary data
Am 11.05.2012 um 13:16 schrieb Terry Long:
>> 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
>>
>
> I agree, using 'single' helps clarify that the function takes only one
> argument.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I originally had 'arguments' in the message, but took it out assuming
> "argument 'n'" was enough to know we were talking about arguments. Given your
> Hawaii example, I can see that the more correct way is probably to explicitly
> say '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.
>
> Yes, allows is more fitting. A function with 1 optional argument is not
> requiring anything.
>
>>
>>> 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?
>
> I overlooked this on my first attempt at the patch, and only added it to the
> 'candidate not viable' diagnostic because the same diagnostic was being used
> for /at most/at least/exactly/. I will definitely add this in.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I would personally leave out 'arguments' to be consistent with all the other
> cases which use 'expected 2, have 0' form, and it is implied by the beginning
> phrase.
>
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I will create a new patch with these changes unless anyone else objects.
>
>
> -Terry
>
>
>> 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
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
