[patch] Render anonymous entities with "(anonymous thing)" rather than "<anonymous thing>"

[David Blaikie]

Committed my original patch in r205398. Happy to bikeshed further,
revert, etc, if anyone has better ideas/disagreements/etc.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer
<arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, if only C++ hadn't already soaked up every possible delimiter-pair
> ((), [], {}, <>, [[]], and in various extensions <<<>>>, ({}), (()),
> ...). No matter what you pick, it'll collide with *some* C++ syntax.
>
> Insert obligatory Unicode proposal here. ;)
>
> FWIW (not much), I like David's original proposal of ()s instead of
> <>s, because IF the goal is to avoid user-confusion, and IF we
> postulate that the user-confusing-est error messages tend to come from
> deeply nested templates, then <>s are worse than ()s.
>
> -Arthur
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM, David Majnemer
> <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> FYI, GCC seems to use curly braces for some diagnostics:
>>
>> given:
>> namespace { int x; }
>> namespace { int x; }
>>
>> GCC outputs:
>> error: redefinition of 'int {anonymous}::x'
>>
>> Personally, I like the curly braces more than the parens.
>>
>> Just my two cents on the issue.
>>
>> On Wed Mar 12 2014 at 4:51:39 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:08 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Partly out of consistency with GCC's anonymous namespace rendering
>>>> ("(anonymous namespace)") and just a desire not to have angle brackets
>>>> be confused with a template argument list, this patch changes all our
>>>> anonymous things to use parens.
>>>>
>>>> Not entirely consistent with GCC (GCC still uses angles for
>>>> "<anonymous struct>" and other cases), but Chandler and Richard seemed
>>>> to prefer consistency between the different kinds of names, rather
>>>> than consistency with GCC here.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't added an actual debug info test, though that was my initial
>>>> motivation - I can add one if someone thinks that's valuable.
>>>>
>>>> Any other thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking through the testcase updates, my gut reaction is that I find the
>>> ()s uglier than the <>s (maybe because it's more obvious that the <>s are
>>> not real language syntax?)... but I'm sure I'll get over it :)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cfe-commits mailing list
>>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>