kadircet added a comment. In D72500#1813975 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72500#1813975>, @sammccall wrote:
> Basing this on the hover for the type doesn't seem right. e.g. `int` should > be the `Type` rather than the `Name`. > > Rather than printing the value if evaluable, I think we should only show the > hover if evaluable. There's a cost to showing it and the value of just the > type doesn't seem clearly high enough. > > I think we should avoid triggering for literals. Maybe some exceptions, but a > hover saying that 0 is an int with value 0 seems silly. agreed. In D72500#1815780 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72500#1815780>, @lh123 wrote: > In D72500#1813975 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D72500#1813975>, @sammccall wrote: > > > I think we should avoid triggering for literals. Maybe some exceptions, but > > a hover saying that 0 is an int with value 0 seems silly. > > > Hovering over `IntegerLiteral/FloatingLiteral` may be useless, but I think > it's useful when hovering over > `StringLiteral/UserDefinedLiteral/CXXNullPtrLiteralExpr ...`. > > - `"hello"` -> `char [6]`. > - `nullptr` -> `std::nullptr_t`. > - `1i` -> `std::complex<double>`. I believe all but the first case seems redundant. So I am only keeping the StringLiterals and dropping the rest. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D72500/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D72500 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
