ilovepi wrote: > If we're open to adding a flag in the base `Info` like > `IsClassSpecialization`, then we can probably easily deal with these by > trying to reconstruct the specialization's arguments (will be something like > "Foo<T, int>.json"). Functions don't produce their own files so function > specializations wont be a problem. Then we can keep this layout. @ilovepi > > That or we manually change the name when serializing during mapping. I'm not > so sure how well merging the infos would be ergonomically. Specializations > can have all of their own unique members and methods which need documentation. >
This sounds promising. I'm fine w/ adding a field to track this. BTW, what does clang do? I'm wondering if we should track more than 1-bit of info here. > I also found a way to get a nice ugly mangled name :) Nice! IIRC that's what I've seen a lot of document generators use. If its unique enough for ODR, is probably good enough for docs ... right? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/142483 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
