kadircet marked an inline comment as not done. kadircet added a comment. In D72498#1813899 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498#1813899>, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> This does not work for more complicated types, though? > E.g. `decltype(a+b)* a` or `vector<decltype(a+b)> a`? yes, and I think we should have a more sophisticated way to print composite types including decltypes to cover more cases. > Why do we prefer to drop `decltype()`, yet show the typedefs? Both could lead > to complicated types, arguably decltypes can be even worse than typedefs. > Could it be the case that we want to show the canonical types (i.e. without > all syntax sugar)? > Maybe we want both the normal type and the canonical type? I think typedef and decltype have different nature, the latter is a lot more obscure than the former, that was the reason why I handled decltypes specifically. I agree with your suggestion for typedefs though, I think there would be value in displaying the underlying type in hover card for type aliases to reduce navigation. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
