Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: | > On 23 Feb 2005 16:49:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > > Neil Booth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > > | > > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:- | > > | | > > | > That statement is factually false as can be verified with EDG-3.5: | > > | | > > | Oh come on Gaby, that's not printing an expression, it prints | > > | > > Please, the statement was that EDG does not print expression outside | > > declarations. But the fact is it does not just print declarations. It | > > prints also statements and expressions part of those statements. | > | > I have no idea whether or not that's true, but as Neil says your example | > does not support that claim. Textually reproducing an input line in a | > diagnostic is very different from reconstructing it in the pretty-printer. | | I think that the best solution for the long term is the caret approach, | printing out the original source line that the user typed. Trying to | re-generate the expression from the tree is likely to generate something | completely unlike the text of the original program. I do acknowledge that | re-generating the expression could be helpful in the case where a macro | expands into something the user did not expect, but that's not going to be | the common case in C++.
many C++ programs are full of macros (more than would be desired). And more and moe popular C++ libraries seem to make far more extensive use of macros than in average programs in the past. | Also, we maintain a standard of civility on this list. I've been known | to violate it occasionally, but when I do I promptly apologize. Let's | try to express our disagreements without treating each other with | disrespect. -- Gaby
