arphaman added inline comments.
================ Comment at: test/CodeCompletion/qualifiers-as-written.cpp:29 + // CHECK-2: COMPLETION: func : [#int#]func(<#foo a#>, <#bar b#>, <#ns::bar c#>, <#ns::baz d#> + // CHECK-2: COMPLETION: func : [#int#]func(<#foo::type a#>, <#bar b#>, <#baz c#> +} ---------------- Sorry, I see the issue now. However, I don't think that we'd like to change the signature for a function like this, as we'd still prefer to show `func (foo::type, ns::bar, ns::baz);` on this line. In Xcode we actually avoid the problem with `std::vector<>`s that you've pointed out entirely by using `value_type`. I'll check what our solution does. Btw, maybe using things like `value_type` is completely wrong (with or without the qualifier)? If we have `std::vector<int>` shouldn't we rather show `push_back(int _Value)`, rather than the `value_type`? Perhaps this kind of change should be discussed with a wider community somehow to find out what's best for all users. https://reviews.llvm.org/D38538 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
