ioeric added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52273#1241281, @sammccall wrote:
> This seems very clever, but extremely complicated - you've implemented much
> of C++'s conversion logic, it's not clear to me which parts are actually
> necessary to completion quality.
> (Honestly this applies to expected types overall - it seems intuitively
> likely that it's a good signal, it seems less obvious that it pulls its
> weight if it can't be made simple).
>
> From the outside it seems much of it is YAGNI, and if we do then we need to
> build it up slowly with an eye for maintainability.
> Can we start with expected type boosting (no conversions) as previously
> discussed, and later measure which other parts make a difference? (I think
> we'll need/want the simple model anyway, for this to work with Dex and other
> token-based indexes).
+1 to a simpler model.
As chatted offline, I think the return type can be split into multiple
orthogonal signals. For example, `const T &` can be split into 3 independent
signals {`const`, `type T`, `reference`}. I think this can make the reasoning
of boosting/scoring easier for both index and code completion. Agree with Sam
that we should start with something simple (e.g. type matching without
conversing) and land basic components to make further evaluation possible.
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D52273
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
