hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:181
+ addToken(E->getMemberLoc(), E->getQualifier()
+ ? HighlightingKind::StaticField
+ : HighlightingKind::Field);
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> nridge wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > This could be member functions, a case is like
> > >
> > > ```
> > > template<class T>
> > > class Foo {
> > > public:
> > > void foo() {
> > > this->foo();
> > > }
> > > };
> > > ```
> > Thanks for the example.
> >
> > Do you have a suggestion for how to discriminate this case? To me, it would
> > seem logical to do it based on syntax (highlight as a member function if
> > the expression forms the function name of a function call expression). That
> > would require navigating from the expression to its parent node. Is there a
> > way to do that?
> There is no way to do this in C++.
> Even if the name is followed by a pair of parenthese, this could either be a
> field with overloaded `operator()` (e.g. a `std::function<void()> field`) or
> a function with the same name.
>
> It's much better to pick a separate highlighting kind for dependent names,
> this follows the actual semantics of C++.
+1, I think we should just highlight them as a dependent type.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:159
+ addToken(E->getNameLoc(), E->getNamingClass()
+ ? HighlightingKind::StaticMethod
+ : HighlightingKind::Function);
----------------
I'm doubting we will encounter other exceptions.
```
struct X {
template<class T>
static T t;
};
template<typename T>
void f() {
X::t<T>; // this is a `UnresolvedLookupExpr`.
}
```
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:54
{HighlightingKind::StaticMethod, "StaticMethod"},
+ {HighlightingKind::Typedef, "Typedef"},
+ {HighlightingKind::DependentType, "DependentType"},
----------------
thanks for catching this!
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67901/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67901
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
