Mail #8037

Back to main page of archive

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

From: Frank Heckenbach
Subject: gpc-20030209 (capitalization error)
Date: 19 Feb 2003, 10:15:32

Tom Schneider wrote:

> > > A tiny bit of punctuation would help:
> > > foo.pas:42: Capitalization of identifier "<current>" doesn't match original one.
> > > foo.pas:17: The original capitalization is "<original>".
> > 
> > Well, most other errors don't include puncutation, and no complete
> > sentences. So it would be unsystematic to make this one different.
> 
> Sigh.  Maybe it's time to start making them more clear?

I personally don't mind either way. Before you start doing those
changes, I suggest you contact the GCC developers since many
messages are in the backend and changing only the frontend ones
would be unsystematic as well ...

> If not, how
> about:
> 
> foo.pas:42: capitalization of identifier "<current>" doesn't match original one
> foo.pas:17: the original capitalization is "<original>"
> 
> The quote marks would help.

As you may have noticed, identifiers in messages are always enclosed
in `...'.

> > > Note that I substituted 'original' throughout for clarity.  (Surely
> > > you don't mean the *previous* one - the one that just preceeded?  In
> > > that case it would yell for the third item in this series:   Knifefish
> > > ... KnifeFish ... Knifefish.  I would think it should only object to
> > > the second one.)
> > 
> > No, sorry. Storing *all* capitalisations is extra effort. Since
> > someone who uses this warning is supposed to want uniform
> > capitalisation, I don't think the effort is worth it ...
> 
> No, I thought that you would only store the first one ("original") and
> compare all later ones ("current") to that.  Generally the first one
> is the definition, so this should work fine.

As I said, if you use this warning, generally you'd want to write
them all the same, and any deviation is a mistake. Until you
convince me otherwise, I don't see why a mistake would be less
likely to occur in the definition than in an applied occurrence.

> In this case it WOULD
> only object to the second case.  If, on the other hand, you store the
> PREVIOUS one, it would object to both the second KnifeFish AND the
> third Knifefish, even though that matches the original (first)
> definition.  That could be rather confusing to someone.  ("Why is it
> yelling at me for this one?  It's right!")

OTOH, if you do make a mistake in the definition, you'd get messages
for each applied occurrence which could be very many. In the other
case, it's at least limited to two messages ...

> Hmm.  I just realized that there is a question of scope here.  Are you
> making a pushdown stack for this?

I've replied to this already, see
http://gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/mail7661.html

Frank

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

In reply to

Back to main page of archive

Note: This page contains information that does not originate from the owner of this web site, but from the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such information. Any use of that infomation requires the consent of the respective author.

Where WWW addresses (URLs) in the mails archived are marked as hyperlinks, this is only for the comfort of the reader. The content of the web pages linked to like this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this web site or of the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such web pages. Those pages are explicitly not to be considered as part of the content of this page, but merely as references.

This page was created by Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).