sammccall added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/ExpandDeducedType.cpp:139
- // if it's a lambda expression, return an error message
- if (isa<RecordType>(*DeducedType) &&
- cast<RecordType>(*DeducedType)->getDecl()->isLambda()) {
- return error("Could not expand type of lambda expression");
+ // we shouldn't replace a dependent type, e.g.
+ // template <class T>
----------------
v1nh1shungry wrote:
> sammccall wrote:
> > why not? replacing this with `T` seems perfectly reasonable.
> > (The fact that we don't do this with `auto t = T{}` is just because we're
> > hitting a limitation of clang's AST)
> I'd like it too. But the `printType()` would give out a `<dependent type>`.
> Though I haven't looked into this, would you mind giving some suggestions
> about it?
Ah, there are three subtly different concepts here:
- is this type usefully printable? There are various reasons why it may not
be, it can contain DependentTy, or a canonical template parameter
(`<template-param-0-0>`), or a lambda.
- is this type dependent in the language sense - an example is some type
parameter `T`. This may or may not be usefully printable. (e.g. try
`template<class X> std::vector<X> y;` and hover on y)
- is this type specifically `DependentTy`, the placeholder dependent type
which we have no information about. This is never usefully printable: prints as
`<dependent type>`
As a heuristic, I'm happy with saying dependent types (in the language sense)
are likely not to print usefully, so don't replace them. But the comment should
say so (this is a heuristic for unprintable rather than an end in itself), and
probably give examples.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141226/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D141226
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
