https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant <jg at jguk dot org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #5) > > I personally feel "bind" is not a word any programming course teaches, we > > say "passing parameters" or "passing arguments". > > You pass arguments, which initialize parameters. Initialization of > references is called binding. Our C++ lectures always said "pass by reference". A quick search online seems to say similar. Although I appreciate compiler developers will always use more formally accurate terms. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/373419/whats-the-difference-between-passing-by-reference-vs-passing-by-value > > > > In addition, I feel we don't think we really need the word "reference" > > If the parameter type wasn't a reference there would be no problem. Omitting > the reason it fails seems unhelpful. My reasoning for not listing the word "reference" is that "int&" includes the symbol & which means reference. But a little duplication is ok.. only one word. > > Therefore, I suggest the following: > > > > $ g++ -o main main.cpp -Wall -Werror -Wconversion > > main.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: > > main.cpp:11:25: error: cannot pass ‘const int’ to non-const ‘int&’ > > No this is nonsense. You are not passing something to a reference, you are > passing it to the function. The object cannot be bound to the reference > because of the cv-qualifiers. Ok, point taken you are right. So this I suggest: main.cpp:11:25: error: cannot pass ‘const int’ by non-const ‘int&’ Or with the "reference" word: main.cpp:11:25: error: cannot pass ‘const int’ by non-const ‘int&’ reference. Although i do like W E Brown suggestion, I took out the "type": "can't initialize parameter reference 'int&' with argument 'const int'" > I'm keen to make the language clearer, but not by making it simply wrong > about what's happening! great! :)
