hokein added a comment. In D56314#1347964 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314#1347964>, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> @hokein, do you need reviewers for this? I'm happy to volunteer. Thanks. > In D56314#1347511 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314#1347511>, @nridge wrote: > >> Might we want to keep some of this information for `workspace/symbol`? I >> mean, surely not "documentation", but perhaps "signature" and "return type"? > > > There's nothing stopping us from reintroducing this information if we start > doing the same. I don't foresee difficulties with this. It would be easier to > figure out the bits we actually need when we implement this functionality. > But I generally prefer to move fast and fix things as you go, even if that > means going back and forth, others might disagree. +1, we don't use the `signature` and `return type` in the `workspace/symbol` at the moment. We could revisit it when we actually need them. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56314 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
