Any chance of making this a really low priority completion? (maybe just leaving in a FIXME or expected-fail check of some kind if it's not practical to implement it right now) For those handful of times when you actually want to do this.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:06 PM Sam McCall via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Author: sammccall > Date: Mon Jan 22 13:05:00 2018 > New Revision: 323149 > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=323149&view=rev > Log: > [clangd] Drop ~destructor completions - rarely helpful and work > inconsistently > > Modified: > clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp > clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp > > Modified: clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp?rev=323149&r1=323148&r2=323149&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp (original) > +++ clang-tools-extra/trunk/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp Mon Jan 22 13:05:00 > 2018 > @@ -361,6 +361,10 @@ struct CompletionRecorder : public CodeC > (Result.Availability == CXAvailability_NotAvailable || > Result.Availability == CXAvailability_NotAccessible)) > continue; > + // Destructor completion is rarely useful, and works inconsistently. > + // (s.^ completes ~string, but s.~st^ is an error). > + if (dyn_cast_or_null<CXXDestructorDecl>(Result.Declaration)) > + continue; > Results.push_back(Result); > } > } > > Modified: clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp > URL: > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp?rev=323149&r1=323148&r2=323149&view=diff > > ============================================================================== > --- clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp > (original) > +++ clang-tools-extra/trunk/unittests/clangd/CodeCompleteTests.cpp Mon Jan > 22 13:05:00 2018 > @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ TEST(CompletionTest, NoDuplicates) { > {cls("Adapter")}); > > // Make sure there are no duplicate entries of 'Adapter'. > - EXPECT_THAT(Results.items, ElementsAre(Named("Adapter"), > Named("~Adapter"))); > + EXPECT_THAT(Results.items, ElementsAre(Named("Adapter"))); > } > > TEST(CompletionTest, ScopedNoIndex) { > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
