jingham requested changes to this revision.
jingham added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
This looks good. I agree with Jonas, however that we might have cases where we
end up with two identical completions that have different descriptions, and we
shouldn't drop them.
================
Comment at: source/Utility/CompletionRequest.cpp:79
+ // Add the completion if we haven't seen the same value before.
+ if (m_added_values.insert(r.GetUniqueKey()).second)
+ m_results.push_back(r);
----------------
JDevlieghere wrote:
> Do you think there's any value in in checking the description? For example,
> if the description was empty for the existing value but a description is
> provided for the duplicate?
This seems reasonable. For instance, for process attach we might want to do
something like:
(lldb) process attach -n Foo<TAB>
Foo - pid 123
Foo - pid 234
FooBar - pid 345
But then the two Foo's would have the same unique key and you would only print
one.
Repository:
rLLDB LLDB
https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
