DoDoENT added a comment. > My thinking is that it's always more frustrating to have not enough > information in a diagnostic than too much information (both are problems in > their own ways though). > ... > I can understand it being less readable for deep nesting situations, but I do > not see why it would be prone to bad corner cases -- it's the most explicit > form we can write (and matches the behavior of all other C++ compilers, from > what we can tell).
I agree with @aaron.ballman. There is no ideal solution here, and I would too prefer to have too much information rather than not enough. GCC and MSVC are quite fine with printing full type names and it's up to IDE's and good editors and CI log parsers to parse that and present in a possibly better format. If others would agree with that as well, I'll be happy to remove the policy from my PR completely and simply make clang print full explicit types always, just like GCC and MSVC do. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D134453 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
