[cfe-commits] r155677 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Basic/DiagnosticCommonKinds.td lib/Parse/ParseDecl.cpp lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp test/FixIt/fixit.cpp test/Parser/cxx-using-declaration.cpp

Richard Smith richard at metafoo.co.uk
Thu Apr 26 17:37:33 PDT 2012


On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Kaelyn Uhrain <rikka at google.com> wrote:
>  > +void Bar(int); // expected-note{{non-type 'Bar' shadowing class 'Bar'
> declared here}}
>
> To me this sort of reads strangely - "non-type 'Bar' shadowing (class
> 'Bar' declared here)" rather than "non-type 'Bar' shadowing (class
> 'Bar') declared here" - but perhaps I'm being pedantic. "class 'Bar'
> shadows non-type 'Bar' declared here" feels more clear to me, but does
> still suffer from the same ambiguity...
>

I suggested earlier on IRC: "class 'Bar' is hidden by a non-type
declaration of 'Bar' here". Does that read better to you? I'm torn between
'hidden' and 'shadowed' -- I think the former is clearer (and is the
standard term), but the latter is already used in other diagnostics and
-Wshadow.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120426/107ea681/attachment.html>


More information about the cfe-commits mailing list