ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D72498#1813962 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72498#1813962>, @sammccall wrote:
> Maybe we want both the normal type and the canonical type? > > Canonical types are often *really* ugly, especially with STL types (we don't > have the "as written" form). And presenting the types twice might be at least > as confusing/noisy as helpful. But if you have examples where this would be > better, it'd be interesting. I'm mostly trying to find a consistent rule we can apply to make these decision. `auto`, `decltype` and typedefs are very similar in this regard, it's a bit confusing we use different rules for those. Although I can see how `auto` and `decltype` could easily be perceived differently and fall into a different group. STL types are unfortunate, that is so true. And most other types aren't. It could be worth looking into the rules clang applies in diagnostics (have you seen those that say `type X(aka vector<int>)`? I have no easy answer, though, it feels this will inevitably lead to terrible presentations of some types. FWIW, showing underlying type of decltype could lead us there too. 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
