On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 12:01 AM, James Dennett <jdenn...@googlers.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-commits < > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I think we more commonly say "function pointer": >> >> $ grep 'pointer-to-function' include/clang/Basic/Diagnostic*td | wc -l >> 3 >> $ grep 'function pointer' include/clang/Basic/Diagnostic*td | wc -l >> 7 >> >> For "object pointer" and "pointer-to-object" it's currently a tie. For >> "member pointer" and "pointer-to-member", the former is more common too. We >> should probably make all of these consistent – any preferences? "foo >> pointer" reads easier to me than "pointer-to-foo", but I'm not a native >> speaker. >> > > The C++ Standard has some unfortunate terminology here: > > 1. > > The type of a pointer to void or a pointer to an object type is called > an object pointer type. [ Note: A pointer to void does not have a > pointer-to-object type, however, because void is not an object type. — > end note ] > > That makes standardizing on either problematic, because they have > different meanings (any pointer-to-object type is an object pointer type, > but not vice versa). > That distinction is probably lost on 99% of clang users though – in general, I think clang tries to not use standardese in its diagnostics too much (there are e.g. 0 diagnostics that mention either of prvalue, xvalue, glvalue). Also, since this diagnostic here talks about conversion of function pointers to void pointers, "pointer-to-object" looks like the wrong term to use in this case even if we tried to stick with the standard's wording, right?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
