nridge added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.h:78 Abstract, + DependentName, ---------------- sammccall wrote: > nridge wrote: > > Just `Dependent` might be enough > AFAICS the current implementation is closer to "dependent name" than > "dependent", I think. > > For example, in the RHS of `template <typename T> using Val = T::value_type`, > both "T" and "value_type" certainly refer to dependent types. But only > `value_type` is a dependent name, and only `value_type` gets the old > kinds/new modifier. > > --- > > Or are you proposing we change the implementation too? > > It's not intuitively which version would be more useful. FWIW I have the > current DependentName kind highlighted in bold bright orange, and I find it > really helpful :-) When there are errors and RecoveryExpr kicks in, it colors > the resulting unresolved names, which I like surprisingly much. I like the current impl as well, was not proposing a change to it. I was just quibbling about the name. Please feel free to ignore, it makes sense to be consistent with clang's terminology. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95706/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95706 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
