Such foresight! Using substitution doesn't preclude localization in the source, but if you wish to avoid for this reason then ok. I believe there to be quite a few other places in clang where we do do some substitution in the source code of a hard-coded string.
At some point I think we need to have a discussion about what the right way to handle diagnostics is. For example, how should warnings be uniquely identified, what rules should their format / grammar follow, what are the guidelines for which locations should be marked, etc. This is probably a ways down the road though. - Daniel On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Sebastian Redl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> >> Not sure if this is what Doug meant, but instead of "splitting" this >> is probably a good candidate to just replace the mouthful with %0 and >> supply the appropriate value at run time. >> > > Nah, 'reference' is not a language keyword, so the message wouldn't be > localizable. I could make one diagnostic for non-const and non-static, but > the static/mutable mismatch is detected by the parser, so the "non-static" > violation is never reported by the sema. > > Sebastian > _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
