r209869 - PR11410 - Confusing diagnostic when trailing array element tries to call deleted default constructor

[Richard Smith]

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com>
wrote:

> That should read "default-constructed".
>>
>
> Could you elaborate? English is not my native language and grepping the
> source code didn't produce anything useful.
>

I think the hyphen should only be present when "default constructed" is
used as an adjective. Here, it's being used as a compound verb, so I think
it should not be hyphenated.


> The message can be made shorter by dropping the first half without losing
>> value -- the source location is sufficiently informative.
>>
>
> I don't think it's obvious without the first part but I'll change it if
> you insist? I've just noticed that 'omitted element' probably needs a
> plural version.
>
>
>> It's unconventional to use 'was' when describing semantic analysis
>> results.
>
>
> How about 'parameter 0% was not declared' or 'unnamed type used in
> template argument was declared here'. There are many others and to me they
> feel more natural, but again I'm not a native speaker. I actually don't
> like that terse mechanical voice compilers often have.
>

Nonetheless, we should use a consistent voice throughout all our
diagnostics.

How about turning this note into a context note (which is what it really
is):

"in implicit default construction of element with omitted initializer"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20140530/e23bdb49/attachment.html>