sammccall added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:436
+  if (HB.inDefaultLibrary(D->getLocation()))
+    return HighlightingModifier::DefaultLibrary;
   const DeclContext *DC = D->getDeclContext();
----------------
kadircet wrote:
> I don't use semantic highlighting enough to judge whether it is more useful 
> to say `DefaultLibrary` than `{Class,Function}Scope`. (i.e. having the check 
> here vs at the end of the function as a fallback). Can you provide some 
> rationale about the decision (probably as comments in code)?
> 
> By looking at the testcase, I suppose you are trying to indicate 
> "overriden"/"extended" attribute of a symbol, which makes sense but would be 
> nice to know if there's more. I am just worried that this is very obj-c 
> specific and won't really generalize to c/c++. As most of the system headers 
> only provide platform specific structs (e.g. posix) and they are almost never 
> extended. So it might be confusing for user to see different colors on some 
> memberexprs.
I think default-library isn't a scope modifier at all, it should be independent.

e.g. std::string is defaultlLibrary | globalScope, while 
std::string::push_back() is defaultLibrary | classScope.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:465
+llvm::Optional<HighlightingModifier>
+scopeModifier(const Type *T, const HighlightingsBuilder &HB) {
   if (!T)
----------------
I'm confused about the interface change - looks like the new parameter never 
actually used, just passed around


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.h:75
   GlobalScope,
+  DefaultLibrary,
 
----------------
This isn't a scope modifier so shouldn't be grouped with them


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D101554/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D101554

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to