courbet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: test/SemaCXX/static-assert.cpp:130
static_assert(std::is_same<decltype(std::is_const<const ExampleTypes::T>()),
int>::value, "message");
-// expected-error@-1{{static_assert failed due to requirement
'std::is_same<std::is_const<const int>, int>::value' "message"}}
+// expected-error@-1{{static_assert failed due to requirement
'std::is_same<is_const<const int>, int>::value' "message"}}
static_assert(std::is_const<decltype(ExampleTypes::T(3))>::value, "message");
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> courbet wrote:
> > aaron.ballman wrote:
> > > Any idea why the `std::` was dropped here?
> > `NestedNameSpecifier::print()` explicitly does:
> >
> > ```
> > PrintingPolicy InnerPolicy(Policy);
> > InnerPolicy.SuppressScope = true;
> > ```
> >
> Ah, good point, but is that a good behavioral change? I slightly prefer
> printing the namespace name there -- it will likely be redundant information
> most of the time, but when the namespace actually matters, having it printed
> could save someone a lot of head scratching.
> I slightly prefer printing the namespace name there
I tend to agree, so it's more a trade-off of code complexity vs better
diagnostic - I tend to err on the side of simplifying the code :)
Another option is to add yet another boolean to PrintingPolicy, but I htink
this is too narrow a use case.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55932/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D55932
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
