kadircet added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp:483
bool EnableFunctionArgSnippets;
+ bool CompleteArgumentList;
};
----------------
maybe rather use `GenerateSnippets`? Since this doesn't generate completions
for the snippets, but rather disables generation of any snippets at all.
also I think it makes sense to document this one, because of the field just
above it.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/CodeComplete.cpp:1466
Output.Completions.back().Score = C.second;
Output.Completions.back().CompletionTokenRange = ReplacedRange;
}
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > why not handle `SnippetSuffix` in here ?
> >
> > instead of propagating `IsUsingDeclaration`, we can just drop
> > `Output.Completions.back().SnippetSuffix` in here, which sounds like a more
> > appropriate layering.
> > considering we don't really have context specific knowledge in
> > `CodeCompletionBuilder` ?
> I was trying to keep all processing of snippets in one place.
> Code completion code is hard enough to navigate as it stands today...
>
> Although I agree doing this when summarizing items in a bundles looks like
> the wrong layer, but this place is also after bundling, so I'm not sure if
> it's actually winning us much.
>
ah ok, that's also a good concern. feel free to choose one or the other then.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69382/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D69382
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
