kadircet added a comment. > Note that we use this information to *animate* the matching tokens, i.e. when > the cursor is on one of them, both it and its counterpart get a special > highlighting. That's why it's so important that the language server > guarantees they always come in pairs.
Oh I see the argument here (somehow missed comment, probably because i had a stale window lying around), this totally makes sense. but I am still feeling uneasy due to implementation complexity (it's embarrassing but dealing with `>>` is quite problematic, still, with little value :/) + the UX we'll have in other editors by default. Especially as this comes as two different `HighlightingKind`s and they're likely to get colored differently, and having your matching brackets in different colors is quite annoying. I feel like editors can still have a quite good behaviour with existing operator highlights, as one can build an extra layer on top to provide "matching bracket" support, and whenever the data is broken (e.g. non-matching brackets) just keep using the results from last "successful" run. ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:408 + Position End = Begin; + ++End.character; + addToken(*LRange, HighlightingKind::AngleBracketOpen); ---------------- there can be weird cases like (same goes for -1 below): ```foo>\ >``` can you add tests to make sure we're handling these properly (or not producing braces for them if it complicates the logic too much, i don't think there'll be many cases where they pop-up). ================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:930 + $Class[[B]] $LocalVariable_def[[b]]; + int $LocalVariable_def[[i]] = static_cast$AngleBracketOpen[[<]]int$AngleBracketClose[[>]](3.5); + void *$LocalVariable_def[[p]] = reinterpret_cast$AngleBracketOpen[[<]]void *$AngleBracketClose[[>]](0); ---------------- could you also add tests for `>>` and `>>>` to make sure they're handled correctly 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
