Ok, sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick re the history. Arguments vs parameters - are we sure this is a distinction worth surfacing to users/uis? I guess modeling both using the same struct is awkward.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 10:57 AM Kadir Cetinkaya via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > kadircet marked an inline comment as done. > kadircet added inline comments. > > > ================ > Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/HoverTests.cpp:1209 > // FIXME: Print template instantiation parameters. > - HI.Name = "initializer_list"; > + HI.Name = "initializer_list<int>"; > HI.Kind = index::SymbolKind::Class; > ---------------- > sammccall wrote: > > Hang on, I think we're going round in circles with this design. > > > > IIRC the idea was that `Name` doesn't include template parameters, > signature, etc, so clients control rendering. > > > > Isn't it easy to reconstitute this from the template argument list in > the hover info? > we were only storing template parameters, not arguments. they've always > been the part of the name, they had disappeared after a previous patch, as > an intermediate state and this was introducing them back. > > i am planning to move template arguments into a different field though, as > template parameters, which should also help with dropping default arguments. > > > Repository: > rG LLVM Github Monorepo > > CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION > https://reviews.llvm.org/D71545/new/ > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D71545 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
