ckandeler added a comment. In D139926#4030782 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D139926#4030782>, @nridge wrote:
> It's true that there is an ambiguity between `<` and `>` as operators, vs. > template arg/param list delimiters, but, at least in terms of user > understanding of code, my sense is that the highlighting of the **preceding** > token should be sufficient to disambiguate -- i.e. it would be some sort of > type name in the template case, vs. a variable / literal / punctuation ending > an expression in the operator case. We used to do this sort of heuristic in our old libclang-based implementation, and it turned out to be rather messy, with a surprising amount of exceptions having to be added. >> This is needed for clients that would like to visualize matching opening and >> closing angle brackets, which can be valuable in non-trivial template >> declarations or instantiations. > > For this use case, could an editor make use of the recently added operator > tokens (https://reviews.llvm.org/D136594) instead, inferring that a `<` token > which does not have an `operator` semantic token is a template delimiter? I have a suspicion that this will lead to false positives for invalid code. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D139926/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D139926 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
