kbobyrev added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D51676#1225215, @sammccall wrote:
> Thanks for cleaning this up! > > I believe this will result in the results from MemIndex being returned in > best -> worst order, rather than worst -> best. > The contract says callers shouldn't rely on the order so it should still be > NFC overall. > It's likely to make your index explorer more useful though :-) Right. The index explorer would probably still have to re-order elements (so that it actually doesn't rely on implementation details and implicit assumptions). For the completion part, IIUC the complete ranking would rearrange items anyway. https://reviews.llvm.org/D51676 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
