Szelethus added a comment. In D65575#1611013 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D65575#1611013>, @NoQ wrote:
> Fantastic! Let's open the wording bikeshed season? > > I suspect that a simple "(The) Value -> Condition value" change would have > worked better. > > Another variant: "Value ..., which participates in a condition later". Yea, I kinda prefer a more uniform indication as to whether we're explaining a condition or "THE value". While I personally took a unique approach in evaluating analysis results (my eye was hunting for the changes I made specifically), I did find each function call in the bug report super easy to understand: F9758175: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F9758175> See how this function call screams what it is about? Now, condition tracking is inherently imperfect (like bug report construction as a whole), and whenever I feel like the notes added by it provide little value, simply glancing at the notes can tell whether I should observe that function call or not. I think it isn't crucial of getting rid of the "The" prefix, if we append ", which participates in a condition later" (which sounds so much better than what I added in this patch), so maybe changing `WillBeUsedForACondition` to that would be good enough. However, as I said, I realize that the way I looked at these results was a lot different than how the average user will do so, so I'm totally open on this topic. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D65575/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D65575 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
