patch: clarify missing template arguments when parsing base specifier

[Nick Lewycky]

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.

Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130826/d668d658/attachment.html>