rsmith added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp:7762-7787
// Ensure none of the TypoExprs have multiple typo correction candidates
// with the same edit length that pass all the checks and filters.
// TODO: Properly handle various permutations of possible corrections when
// there is more than one potentially ambiguous typo correction.
// Also, disable typo correction while attempting the transform when
// handling potentially ambiguous typo corrections as any new TypoExprs
will
// have been introduced by the application of one of the correction
----------------
dgoldman wrote:
> rsmith wrote:
> > What happens if an ambiguous `TypoExpr` is created as a result of one of
> > the outer level transformations?
> >
> > In that case, I think that we will try alternatives for that `TypoExpr`
> > here, but that `TypoExpr` is not in the expression we're transforming (it
> > was created within `RecursiveTransformLoop` and isn't part of `E`), so
> > we're just redoing the same transformation we already did but with
> > typo-correction disabled. This means that the transform will fail (because
> > we hit a typo and can't correct it), so we'll accept the original set of
> > corrections despite them being ambiguous.
> So what do you recommend here? Checking for the non-ambiguity in
> `RecursiveTransformLoop` itself?
Suggestion: in the recursive transform, if we find a potential ambiguity, check
whether it's actually ambiguous before returning. If it is ambiguous, fail out
of the entire typo-correction process: one of our tied-for-best candidates was
ambiguous, so we deem the overall typo-correction process to be ambiguous. And
if not, then carry on as in your current patch.
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62648/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D62648
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
