Fznamznon added inline comments.
================
Comment at:
clang/test/CXX/expr/expr.prim/expr.prim.lambda/expr.prim.lambda.capture/p5.cpp:7
+ // expected-note {{variable 'x' is
explicitly captured here}}
+ auto h = [y = 0]<typename y>(y) { return 0; }; // expected-error
{{declaration of 'y' shadows template parameter}} \
+ // expected-note {{template
parameter is declared here}}
----------------
shafik wrote:
> I don't know if shadowing is the correct term to use here. The wording simply
> says they can't have the same name. I think the diagnostic should say
> something similar.
Well, the example with capture and a parameter uses shadowing term, so I just
followed the same approach.
If we say something like "explicitly captured entity and template parameter
can't have the same name", does it make sense to emit a note "captured here"
for the capture with conflicting name?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148712/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148712
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
