klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36574#860197, @arphaman wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D36574#858763, @klimek wrote: > > > One of my main concerns is still that I don't see the need for all the > > template magic yet :) Why doesn't everybody use the RefactoringResult we > > define here? > > > @klimek, are you talking about the template usage in this patch or the whole > approach in general? I can probably think of some way to reduce the template > boilerplate if you are talking about the general approach. Talking about the approach in general :) ================ Comment at: test/Refactor/LocalRename/Field.cpp:4 +class Baz { + int /*range=*/Foo; // CHECK: symbol [[@LINE]]:17 -> [[@LINE]]:20 +public: ---------------- arphaman wrote: > klimek wrote: > > Does this just test the selection? > No, this is the moved `clang-rename/Field.cpp` test that tests local-rename. > I will move the other tests when this patch is accepted. Ok, then I find this test really hard to read - where does it check what the symbol was replaced with? Repository: rL LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D36574 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
