Re: code that could be improved

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

| On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > I don't think that default would be appropriate.  There are common
| > situations where we want to say
| > 
| >    "fubar '%D::%T' is foo and bar" 
| 
| That seems quite rare; the bulk of uses are quoted on their own and there
| are a few cases that are unquoted for no obvious reason.
| 
| decl.c:     error ("explicit specialization of %D after first use",
| decl.c:         error ("duplicate initialization of %D", decl);
| parser.c:    error ("%D redeclared with different access", decl);
| pt.c:                 error ("specialization of %D after instantiation",

Those certainly are errors.

| > | %` for a left quote (' in C locale)
| > | %' for a right quote (' in C locale)
| > | %qs for quoted string
| > | %qD for unquoted decl
| > 
| > I would prefer a simple
| > 
| >   %q for quoted tree or string
| > 
| > There is no conceptual difference when a tree  or string literal is
| > reported in diagnostics.
| 
| We need %` and %' for all the cases such as '%D::%T' you gave where more 
| than a single format specifier is quoted.

I agree on that.

|  But where a single specifier is 
| quoted, there is a case for consistency in use of %q even if this does 
| mean almost all uses of %D become %qD.

this probably the piece I did not understand.  I thought the proposal
would be

   %`D%::%T%'  for '%D::T'

and

   %q%s or %q%D for  "%s" and '%D'

Could you reformulate, please?

-- Gaby