aaron.ballman added a comment.
In D128715#3619650 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D128715#3619650>,
@serge-sans-paille wrote:
> @aaron.ballman : I agree with most of your suggestion except the one below
> that I annotated accordingly
>
> struct Base {
> virtual void O0();
>
> private:
> void II();
> };
>
> struct Derived : Base {
> void OO(); // We should warn about this
> void I1(); // I think we should warn about this too, because
> implementation of, say, `O0` could refer to `I1` wich would be confusable
> with `Il`
> };
>
> void I1(); // we should probably warn here too, becaus ein the
> implementation of, says, `O0`, if we refer to `Il`, it's confusable with this
> `I1` too
I don't think we should diagnose `Derived::I1()` because `Base::II()` is
private, so `I1` can never be validly confused with `II` (either from within
the class context or externally).
The free function case is actually interesting but not because of confusable
identifiers. If you call `I1()` within the context of `Derived`, are you trying
to call the member function (you will) or the free function (you won't)? But I
don't think it should be warned as a confusable identifier in terms of Unicode
confusables because calling the member function outside of the class context
requires an object while calling the free function does not, while calling it
within the class is already confused because of name hiding.
Does that change your opinion at all?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128715/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D128715
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
