patch: clarify missing template arguments when parsing base specifier

[Chandler Carruth]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote:

> On 26 August 2013 22:53, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this case has more problems than just verbosity...
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130826/b15a3a69/attachment.html>