On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26 August 2013 22:53, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think this case has more problems than just verbosity... >> >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Nick Lewycky <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> a.cc:1:56: error: no template named 'Foox'; did you mean 'Foo'? >>> template <typename T> class Foo {}; class Bar : public Foox {}; >>> [point at 'Foox' suggest 'Foo'] >>> >> >> Why does it assume Foox is a template? >> > > It's already proven that it's not not-a-template. > > a.cc:1:29: note: 'Foo' declared here >>> template <typename T> class Foo {}; class Bar : public Foox {}; >>> [point at 'Foo'] >>> a.cc:1:56: error: expected template argument list after template-id >>> template <typename T> class Foo {}; class Bar : public Foox {}; >>> [point at 'Foox'] >>> >> >> And given that we then hit this error, why do we even consider the Foo >> typo correction? Do we prefer that over a "Fooxie" class due to shorter >> edit distance? That doesn't seem right. I would intuitively expect the lack >> of "<..." to be a stronger signal than any edit distance, and thus >> disqualify template-ids from the typo correction candidate set. >> > > No. We only go down this patch after we've done a lookup and typo > correction on non-templates, and found nothing. > I'm suggesting that a missing header or exceeding the maximum edit distance threshold seems just as plausible as using a template without template arguments. I'm not claiming that I have some strong reason to believe one interpretation or the other to be more likely, only that it doesn't seem clear-cut in either direction to me.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
