[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

[Kaelyn Uhrain]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yes, that seems unambiguous.
>

I've committed the new wording as r155723 :)


>
> > 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.
>
> I'd fall on the side of 'hidden' because I prefer standard wording
> where possible. Pity about the existing convention, though.


> - David
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20120427/651e8285/attachment.html>