================
@@ -490,6 +491,13 @@ bool eligibleForExtraction(const SelectionTree::Node *N) {
BO->getRHS() == OuterImplicit.ASTNode.get<Expr>())
return false;
}
+ if (const auto *Decl = Parent->ASTNode.get<VarDecl>()) {
+ if (!Decl->isInitCapture() &&
----------------
kadircet wrote:
thanks for the example!
I guess one conceptual thing to note here is, clangd doesn't run it's
refactorings on the exact selection user provided. instead it figures out an
AST node that's "relevant" to this selection, and everything else is performed
on that AST node, mostly independent of the selection.
So this approach is surely not always what the user means/wants, but let's us
reason about the refactoring going on. For this case in particular, even if you
said the refactoring is available for selection of `x = 1 + [[2 + 3]]` through
these heuristics, clangd will still end up extracting the full RHS, because
that's the AST node we associated with that selection.
Hence I'd actually lean towards not special casing it here, just to do the
thing we're trying to prevent later on. Any particular reason why we should say
extraction is available for such cases (and then still perform the extraction
we're trying to avoid)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69477
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
