Sirraide wrote:

> I don't think contractions are the confusing part of diagnostics, but I do 
> think we want consistency between our diagnostics as much as possible and we 
> use a mixture of both contractions and no contractions inconsistently (though 
> that's improving). I fall on the side of avoiding contractions rather than 
> including them.

I guess that makes sense yeah (I personally don’t care *that* much about 
consistency wrt diagnostic wording, but I can also see why that’s something 
we’d want).

> Do you have strong opinions on using contractions? Would you recommend we go 
> the other direction and switch to consistently using contractions?

I don’t have *strong* opinions about this, no; *linguistically*, imo either way 
is fine (I’d just be a bad linguist if I didn’t argue against prescriptivism 
whenever it comes up ;Þ), but I don’t have a problem w/ picking one over the 
other for non-linguistic reasons. I mean, I would probably prefer it if we 
could write diagnostic messages w/o having to think too hard as to what the 
correct style is wrt things like these (because it’s what I think people will 
just naturally do), but if it’s just a matter of ‘we want to be consistent, so 
let’s always do X, even though that choice is more or less arbitrary’, then 
that’s equally valid.

So in sum, enforcing one over the other is not what I’d want to do (and I just 
don’t think it’s all that necessary), but if we decide to go that route, then 
I’m fine w/ that too ;Þ

https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116803
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to