jkorous marked 5 inline comments as done.
jkorous added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clangd/ClangdServer.cpp:529
+
+ WorkScheduler.runWithAST("CursorInfo", File, Bind(Action, std::move(CB)));
+}
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > nit: SymbolInfo
> (This still says CursorInfo in the runWithAST call)
I sent my comments first and updated the diff a minute after. You are probably
just too fast and saw the stale version :)
================
Comment at: clangd/XRefs.cpp:785
+ }
+ Results.emplace_back(std::move(NewSymbol));
+ }
----------------
sammccall wrote:
> jkorous wrote:
> > sammccall wrote:
> > > nit: push_back (and below)
> > Sure, no problem. I have to admit I thought these two are the same but I
> > guess you pointed this out because there's a functional difference. I'd
> > appreciate if you could advise where can I learn the details.
> Here the behavior is identical, so this is really a style thing.
>
> `emplace_back` is a more powerful function, with semantics "make a new
> element": it will forward *any* argument list to a constructor of Symbol,
> selected by overload resolution.
>
> `push_back` is a more constrained function, with semantics "insert this
> element": it takes one Symbol and forwards it to the move constructor (or
> copy constructor, as appropriate).
>
> They're equivalent here because `emplace_back` can select the
> move-constructor when passed a single `Symbol&&`. But it communicates intent
> less clearly, so humans have a harder time (harder to understand the code) as
> does the compiler (error messages are worse).
Thanks!
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54799/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D54799
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
