Frank:
Capitalization of definition <original> does not match <current>.
"Definition" is generally not correct, since it can also be an applied occurrence of an identifier.
Thanks, I suspected that wasn't the right term!
I'd prefer to have it in two lines, so the file names/line numbers can refer to both points of usage. But breaking a sentence in such a way, with a (generally) different line number in between, might be confusing. So I'd then suggest something like:
foo.pas:42: capitalization of identifier <current> does not match previous one foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
or
foo.pas:42: msimatched capitalization of identifier <current> foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
1. mismatched :-)
2. I find this use of the term 'mismatched' to be confusing. Line 42 does not stand by itself. Mismatched to what? Oh, that. It doesn't flow in logical order.
3. It's a bit confusing if you read it rapidly in one go and think it is one sentence.
So I think the other example is better:
foo.pas:42: capitalization of identifier <current> does not match previous one foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
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>".
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.)
Ok, now to tighten the screws and make is it shorter:
foo.pas:42: Identifier "<current>" capitalization doesn't match original. foo.pas:17: The original capitalization is "<original>".
so:
foo.pas:42: Identifier "KnifeFish" capitalization doesn't match original. foo.pas:17: The original capitalization is "Knifefish".
:-)
Tom
Dr. Thomas D. Schneider National Cancer Institute Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201 toms@ncifcrf.gov permanent email: toms@alum.mit.edu (use only if first address fails) http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/
Tom Schneider wrote:
I'd prefer to have it in two lines, so the file names/line numbers can refer to both points of usage. But breaking a sentence in such a way, with a (generally) different line number in between, might be confusing. So I'd then suggest something like:
foo.pas:42: capitalization of identifier <current> does not match previous one foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
or
foo.pas:42: msimatched capitalization of identifier <current> foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
mismatched :-)I find this use of the term 'mismatched' to be confusing. Line 42
does not stand by itself. Mismatched to what? Oh, that. It doesn't flow in logical order.
- It's a bit confusing if you read it rapidly in one go and think
it is one sentence.
So I think the other example is better:
foo.pas:42: capitalization of identifier <current> does not match previous one foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
OK.
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.
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 ...
CBFalconer wrote:
Martin Liddle wrote:
In article 200302171417.PAA25667@goedel.fjf.gnu.de, Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes
I'd prefer to have it in two lines, so the file names/line numbers can refer to both points of usage. But breaking a sentence in such a way, with a (generally) different line number in between, might be confusing. So I'd then suggest something like:
foo.pas:42: msimatched capitalization of identifier <current> foo.pas:17: previous capitalization <original>
This sounds perfect to me.
Doesn't it break some of the error parsing IDE's ?
Actually, it's meant to support it, so you can jump to the two positions (if the IDE supports this by the given line numbers), since in general you don't know which one is "wrong".
Frank
-
Frank Heckenbach -
Tom Schneider