ilya-biryukov added a comment. Wow, this is getting somewhat complicated.
Have you considered rerunning clangd whenever someone changes an option like that? Would that be much more complicated on your side? Not opposed to having an option too, just want to be aware of the costs involved on your end. ================ Comment at: clangd/Protocol.h:368 + /// both Optionals are instantiated. + llvm::Optional<llvm::Optional<std::string>> compilationDatabasePath; ---------------- Not a big fan or something like this, but maybe give special meaning to empty path instead of wrapping an optional into an optional? Double optionals are a real pain to write and read. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra https://reviews.llvm.org/D51725 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
