nridge added a comment.
Thanks for looking at this! Sorry for the late response, I was travelling for a
few weeks.
So far I've only had a chance to look at the tests.
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeCompletion/concepts.cpp:34
+ // RUN: | FileCheck %s -check-prefix=DOT -implicit-check-not=xxx_t
+ // DOT: Pattern : [#convertible_to<double>#]aaa()
+ // DOT: Pattern : bb() (requires fix-it: {{.*}} to "->")
----------------
Doesn't the presence of the `x` mean we should only get results that start with
`x`?
(Or, if "column 5" actually means we're completing right after the dot, why is
the `x` present in the testcase at all -- just so that the line is
syntactically well formed?)
================
Comment at: clang/test/CodeCompletion/concepts.cpp:35
+ // DOT: Pattern : [#convertible_to<double>#]aaa()
+ // DOT: Pattern : bb() (requires fix-it: {{.*}} to "->")
+ // DOT: Pattern : bbb()
----------------
Should we be taking completions from just one branch of a logical-or in a
requirement?
To simplify the scenario a bit:
```
template <typename T>
requires (requires(T t) { t.foo(); } || requires(T t) { t.bar(); })
void f(T t) {
t.^
}
```
Do we want to be offering both `foo()` and `bar()` as completions here?
Logically, it seems we only ought to offer completions from expressions that
appear in _both_ branches of the logical-or (so, if `t.foo()` appeared as a
requirement in both branches, we could offer `foo()`).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73649/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D73649
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
