https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant <jg at jguk dot org> --- (In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #4) > IMHO "discards qualifiers" and even "discards const qualifier" are still > confusing. Making it clearly counterfactual, as in "...would discard > (const) qualifier(s)...," would be an improvement. > > But I'd further argue that "discarding qualifiers" is not really how most > people think of this kind of error. When a minor tries to get into a bar, > they are not told that "entering this bar discards your age," they are told > that "minors aren't allowed." So I think "cannot bind 'const int' to > non-const reference type 'int&'" would be more intuitive phrasing. Hi Tavian Yes, your proposal sounds good. Definitely clearer English would be very helpful. I personally feel "bind" is not a word any programming course teaches, we say "passing parameters" or "passing arguments". In addition, I feel we don't think we really need the word "reference" Therefore, I suggest the following: $ g++ -o main main.cpp -Wall -Werror -Wconversion main.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: main.cpp:11:25: error: cannot pass ‘const int’ to non-const ‘int&’
