travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
How is it going? Do you have time to go on working on this PR? It would be
really great if we could finish it and get it merged. My team mates are looking
forward to using the new features.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113669
__
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I extended my prototype to create overlay icons for all Symbol Tags. I'm using
another C++ code example for testing clangd's tags and my visualization. The
results are promising, but I have a few questions.
* Could you please check if you can also set `Final` tags?
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I checked the verbose LS log output and it says it's using another clangd
version than the one I built from your branch (it's telling me it being version
18.1.1). I checked my config. It turns out there was some config file replacing
the default clangd path with an
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I'm using commit `2d8224260143899f9af9a99465318da05d04722f` from your branch
`support-symbolTags`.
Your newest commit 0f6d25b82fc6bbd191cebd61943defe5da2e3814 only removes the
Constant tag. Thus, It would only change the numbers returned as tags.
I'll check if I c
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I found out that I get symbol tags if the LSP method
[textDocument/publishDiagnostics](https://microsoft.github.io/language-server-protocol/specifications/lsp/3.17/specification/#textDocument_publishDiagnostics)
is used. Could you please check your implementation if
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I started testing your version of clangd that I built locally. It seems that
clangd does not return any symbol tags. I'm checking if I missed something in
LSP4J, LSP4E or somewhere else. I guess there is something missing when
handling the json response and creatin
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
> @HighCommander4 Just try to avoid building clangd locally.
I built your branch of llvm / clangd locally. I did the following on a linux
machine
* do a shallow clone `git clone -b support-symbolTags --depth 1
g...@github.com:chouzz/llvm-project.git`
* prepare th
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
I think, I have a first clangd LSP client prototype that I could start using
for testing your modified clangd prototype. I guess, I have to build your fork
on my machine, right?
It seems, there is one failing test in the CI pipeline. Could you try fixing it?
```
F
travkin79 wrote:
Thank you @chouzz,
I'll adapt the CDT LSP project (and maybe others like LSP4E and LSP4J)
accordingly.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/113669
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi
travkin79 wrote:
Thank you @chouzz for adding _Declaration_ and _Definition_ tags.
I'm sorry for answering late. I was quite busy last days.
Could we please also replace the _Const_ tag with the _Read-only_ tag? (I'm
planning to remove the _Const_ tag from my PR on the LSP spec).
What about a
travkin79 wrote:
I thought about the _Constant_ tag. In Java for example, there is no `const`
keyword, instead the `final` keyword is used for variables to declare them as
read-only. The keyword `final` means something else for methods (they cannot be
overridden).
The keywords and their mean
travkin79 wrote:
Hi @chouzz,
Thank you very much for your PR draft. I checked your changes and have a few
questions.
Does the method AST.isConst(...) in your implementation mean a method declared
with a const keyword (as intended in my [LSP
PR](https://github.com/microsoft/language-server-pr
12 matches
Mail list logo
