erichkeane 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}}
----------------
Fznamznon wrote:
> 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?
I think the 'shadows' is an appropriate as it matches what we do in normal
template cases:
```
template<typename T>
int foo(int T) {
int T = 5;
}
<source>:3:13: error: declaration of 'T' shadows template parameter
int foo(int T) {
^
<source>:2:19: note: template parameter is declared here
template<typename T>
^
<source>:4:9: error: redefinition of 'T'
int T = 5;
^
<source>:3:13: note: previous definition is here
int foo(int T) {
```
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148712/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148712
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
