hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:46
+ // removed.
+ for (unsigned I = 0; I < Tokens.size(); ++I) {
+ ArrayRef<HighlightingToken> TokRef(Tokens);
----------------
we don't care the Kind in `HighlightingToken` now, I think we could simplify
the code by tweaking the deduplication logic above?
```
llvm::sort(Tokens, [](const HighlightingToken &L, const HighlightingToken &R) {
return L.R < R.R;
});
std::unique(Tokens.begin(), Tokens.end(), [](const HighlightingToken &L, const
HighlightingToken &R) {
return L.R == R.R;
});
```
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:195
+ #define DEF_CLASS(T) class T {};
+ DEF_MULTIPLE(XYZ);
+ DEF_MULTIPLE(XYZW);
----------------
jvikstrom wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > Could you add a comment explaining that we choose to not highlight the
> > conflicting tokens?
> There is a comment in SemanticHighlighting.cpp at line 43. Want me to add a
> comment in the test case as well?
The comment in SemanticHighlighting.cpp file is too far away, there is no harm
to add comment here, indeed, it somehow improves the test code readability .
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64741/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D64741
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
