On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 23 Feb 2005 16:49:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:- > > | > > | > That statement is factually false as can be verified with EDG-3.5: > > | > > | Oh come on Gaby, that's not printing an expression, it prints > > > > Please, the statement was that EDG does not print expression outside > > declarations. But the fact is it does not just print declarations. It > > prints also statements and expressions part of those statements. > > I have no idea whether or not that's true, but as Neil says your example > does not support that claim. Textually reproducing an input line in a > diagnostic is very different from reconstructing it in the pretty-printer.
I think that the best solution for the long term is the caret approach, printing out the original source line that the user typed. Trying to re-generate the expression from the tree is likely to generate something completely unlike the text of the original program. I do acknowledge that re-generating the expression could be helpful in the case where a macro expands into something the user did not expect, but that's not going to be the common case in C++. Also, we maintain a standard of civility on this list. I've been known to violate it occasionally, but when I do I promptly apologize. Let's try to express our disagreements without treating each other with disrespect.
