cor3ntin added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Sema/SemaLambda.cpp:1368
+ // C++: expr.prim.lambda.capture p5:
+ // If an identifier in a capture appears as the declarator-id of a parameter
----------------
================
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:
> erichkeane wrote:
> > 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) {
> > ```
> So [shadowing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_shadowing) is
> synonymous w/ name hiding which is not really the case here. I will concede
> it is consistent with how we are using elsewhere but this PR is probably not
> the place to change it. So I will drop the objection and probably file a bug
> report.
Well, if it was allowed, it would shadow and it's not allowed.
I think the message is clear for user - maybe we could ad "which is not
allowed" or something, so that it isn't confused with a shadow warning.
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
