jingham requested changes to this revision.
jingham added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
You do care about the common match string. When the lldb driver handles
completion, if the common match string is not null, we append that to the line
at the cursor position, then present the matches if there is more than one. So
the common match string also has to be tested.
The ability to page the completion requests in the API would be useful for
instance in symbol completion where you can get lots of matches, but if you
only plan to display the first page you'd rather not pay the cost to go find
them all. I put that in the SB API's because I didn't want to have to add
another one when I got around to implementing this. When I get around to this
I'll fix the docs... But you could remove that from the lldb private version
if you're so motivated. I'll still remember I intended to extend it this way,
even if nobody else will see that.
We can't return a std::pair across the SB API's, but we could make the common
match be another parameter. There was some reason this seemed logical to me at
the time, but I must admit I can't remember why now. It is in practice easy to
use, however. You append element 0 to the cursor position, then print the rest
of the completions if num_matches is > 1. Again, feel free to switch the
lldb_private API if it bugs you.
An additional test in the Python testsuite is:
def test_target_create_dash_co(self):
"""Test that 'target create --co' completes to 'target variable --core
'."""
self.complete_from_to('target create --co', 'target create --core ')
So I still don't see why the file check method is preferable. But to each his
own, I guess.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D43048
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
