On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 31/05/2014 01:10, Richard Smith wrote: > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> That should read "default-constructed". >> >> >> Could you elaborate? English is not my native language and >> grepping the source code didn't produce anything useful. >> >> >> I think the hyphen should only be present when "default constructed" is >> used as an adjective. Here, it's being used as a compound verb, so I think >> it should not be hyphenated. >> > > "Compound verbs are either hyphenated or appear as one word. If you do not > find the verb in the dictionary, hyphenate it." >
Hmm, OK... > http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp > > Alp. > > > > The message can be made shorter by dropping the first half >> without losing value -- the source location is sufficiently >> informative. >> >> >> I don't think it's obvious without the first part but I'll change >> it if you insist? I've just noticed that 'omitted element' >> probably needs a plural version. >> >> It's unconventional to use 'was' when describing semantic >> analysis results. >> >> >> How about 'parameter 0% was not declared' or 'unnamed type used in >> template argument was declared here'. There are many others and to >> me they feel more natural, but again I'm not a native speaker. I >> actually don't like that terse mechanical voice compilers often have. >> >> >> Nonetheless, we should use a consistent voice throughout all our >> diagnostics. >> >> How about turning this note into a context note (which is what it really >> is): >> >> "in implicit default construction of element with omitted initializer" > > ... but I think this one is the gerund form, which my research suggests does not get a hyphen. :-)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
