https://github.com/AaronBallman closed
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
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
AaronBallman wrote:
> > could there be tools that try to parse the messages
>
> Hmm, I think we have other formats that are better suited for that (don’t we
> have a flag that makes us print JSON diagnostics?), so I’d _hope_ that no-one
> tries to just parse the diagnostics from the terminal,
https://github.com/Sirraide approved this pull request.
I think that’s fine, yeah
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
Sirraide wrote:
I don’t have a very strong opinion on this if the consensus is that this is a
change for the better, but as someone with a background in linguistics, I’d
argue that this seems like a weird thing to discourage—I don’t think the single
quote is really distracting at all if it occ
https://github.com/erichkeane approved this pull request.
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
Sirraide wrote:
> could there be tools that try to parse the messages
Hmm, I think we have other formats that are better suited for that (don’t we
have a flag that makes us print JSON diagnostics?), so I’d *hope* that no-one
tries to just parse the diagnostics from the terminal, and even then,
kparzysz wrote:
Here's another thing---could there be tools that try to parse the messages
(e.g. something that runs clang and presents the messages to the user in some
form)? Having a policy such as "single quotes only come in pairs" could make
it easier. I don't know if that's something we
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
https://github.com/Sirraide edited
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
Sirraide wrote:
> this is something I've heard many times over the years when talking about
> writing to a multilingual audience.
Hmm, I don’t know if there are any linguistic studies about this off the top of
my head (I can only speak from my personal experience of never having
encountered s
AaronBallman wrote:
> I don’t have a very strong opinion on this if the consensus is that this is a
> change for the better, but as someone with a background in linguistics, I’d
> argue that this seems like a weird thing to discourage—I don’t think the
> single quote is really distracting at a
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
@@ -160,6 +160,10 @@ wording a diagnostic.
named in a diagnostic message. e.g., prefer wording like ``'this' pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code`` over wording like ``this pointer
cannot be null in well-defined C++ code``.
+* Prefer diagnostic wording without
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Aaron Ballman (AaronBallman)
Changes
This dissuades contributors from using contractions when writing diagnostic
wording for Clang. Contractions should be avoided because of the potential for
visual confusion with single quoting syntactic
https://github.com/AaronBallman created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/116803
This dissuades contributors from using contractions when writing diagnostic
wording for Clang. Contractions should be avoided because of the potential for
visual confusion with single quoting syntactic con
19 matches
Mail list logo
