> Well Geany could use [scope::]func_name(params) -> return_type format for C++ > calltips. It should be familiar to any modern C++ developer and -> is fairly > intuitive anyway.
Agreed > It would be especially useful when there are overloads returning different > types, otherwise clicking through the calltip arrows to find the right one is > awkward to read. Like that, overloads with different scope are immediately > obvious. Looking for a scope and/or parameter overload is more common than > looking for return type (and even if looking for the latter you can just look > to the end of the calltip). Agree it is most common to select overloads based on scope. > Also the calltips are not even sorted by return type, so that alone is > evidence the return type is not the salient info. There are situations where the same function returns different types depending on parameter types (eg `std::map::insert()` returns either a `pair` or `iterator` or `void` or `insert_return_type` depending on parameter type) so selecting between calls in the _same scope_ based on "what do I want to get from this call", ie return type will be needed. Sorting by type might be useful then. But your evidence argument is plain spurious, just because something is not done, its not evidence that it would not be useful, otherwise nothing would ever happen, Enrico would have said "Geany does not exist, so that is evidence its not needed, so I won't write it". -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/3459#issuecomment-1512334328 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/issues/3459/1512334...@github.com>
