[PATCH] D122119: [C++20][Modules] Adjust handling of exports of namespaces and using-decls.

[Iain Sandoe via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

iains marked 2 inline comments as done.
iains added a comment.

In D122119#3398949 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119#3398949>, @ChuanqiXu wrote:

> In D122119#3398823 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119#3398823>, @iains wrote:
>
>> So the adjustment to the error message is something I am 50/50 about (IMO it makes some messages more useful, but maybe not needed in others).
>>
>> Without the change we get 
>> "cannot export redeclaration 'xxx' here since the previous declaration is not exported"
>>
>> So, e.g in C++20 10.2 example 6. every case has the same error message (which was what prompted me to make the change).
>>
>> With the change here we now get:
>> cannot export redeclaration 'f' here since the previous declaration has internal linkage
>> cannot export redeclaration 'S' here since the previous declaration has module linkage
>>
>> which seems maybe to be more helpful to the user in telling them why.
>>
>> I hope others can weigh in with an opinion here  .. @dblaikie @vsapsai  ?
>
> I am OK to wait for opinions from others. Let me talk it a little bit more.
>
> The first feeling I saw the change is that not every C++ programmer knows about linkage. OK, it depends on the environment really and every one might has their own opinion.
>
> Another thought is that 10.2.6 (http://eel.is/c++draft/module.interface#6) doesn't talk anything about linkage:
>
>> A redeclaration of an entity X is implicitly exported if X was introduced by an exported declaration; otherwise it shall not be exported.
>
> So it looks like confusing to talk about linkage this time. In my imagination, there might be a such situation:
>
> A programmer met the error when he tries to export a redeclaration which is internal linkage (maybe a simple const variable). Then the message told him the internal linkage is not allowed to re-export. Then he removes the const specifier. Now he meets the error again. It tells that we couldn't export redeclaration which is module linkage. I guess he would feel bad. Then he might try to export the first declaration to get passed. However, the `const` specifier is lost in the case. And in the current message, I guess he would add export to the first declaration directly after he reads the message.

yes, that seems like a reasonable counter argument, and perhaps talking about linkage in a user message is a bit "implementor speak".. 
...  as I said, I was kind of 50/50 about this - I'll wait 48h for any other comments and then remove the change if there are no votes in favour.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D122119