nridge added a comment. In D56370#1390359 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56370#1390359>, @sammccall wrote:
> So on a concrete but still high-level: > > - I don't think we should implement the `resolve` operation, or resolution > bounds, at this point - this patch doesn't do anything slow. Returning > complete ancestors and never returning any children seems simplest. A hypothetical client could always ask for one level at a time, and ignore any levels it didn't ask for; such a client would break if we did this. I think the implementation of `resolve` is straightforward enough that we might as well keep it. > - in 'XRefs.h', I think the API to introduce is `findTypeAt(Position) -> > Decl*` + `typeAncestors(Decl*)` and later `typeDescendants(Decl*)`, rather > than a single more complex `typeHierarchy` call. These two operations have > little in common implementation-wise, and it's easy to imagine editors > preferring to expose them separately. In clangdserver of course we need to > expose a single operation because of transactionality. The stitching together > could go in clangdserver, or a higher-level function exposed by xrefs - but I > think the separate functions are what we should be unit-testing. This sounds nice and clean, thanks for the suggestion! I will give it a try. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56370/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56370 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
