nridge added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/FindTargetTests.cpp:581 + + [[Fooable]] auto i = 42; + )cpp"; ---------------- nridge wrote: > sammccall wrote: > > this is going to have the same behavior on the `auto` token, right? > > > > This is my main practical concern, that go-to-definition, hover, find-refs, > > go-to-type etc on `auto` will now treat `Fooable` as their target. > > > > (That said, I'm not sure exactly how common it is for `auto` to be > > constrained in a non-dependent context...) > > That said, I'm not sure exactly how common it is for `auto` to be > > constrained in a non-dependent context... > > I think it may be reasonably common. For example, in this [hello world > example](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2300r7.html#example-hello-world) > for the C++23 asynchronous programming proposal we have things like > `scheduler auto` and `sender auto` (where `scheduler` and `sender` are > concepts). > > So, do think we want `auto` linked to the concrete deduced type in situations > like this, and only the concept name linked to the concept definition. > in this [hello world > example](https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2300r7.html#example-hello-world) > for the C++23 asynchronous programming proposal (Slight correction: this is a C++26 proposal. My point remains though.) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D154853/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D154853 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
