arphaman added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D39836#920587, @sammccall wrote:
> So I probably should have started from the other end, here :-) > > I'd really like to make the completion retrieval and ranking more flexible. > In particular > > - incorporating results from other sources (indexes: both in-memory and > external services). > - combining more quality signals like usage count and fuzzy-match-strength in > a non-lexicographic-sort way The biggest difficulty in *supporting* unusable > functions is maintaining the invariant that all unusable functions are ranked > lower than usable ones - all code that deals with ranking has to deal with > this special case, e.g. by making score a tuple instead of a single number. That sounds good to me. Please keep in mind that not all clients might want to take advantage of these things as they might have their own fuzz-match logic and external result injection. > If the current approach of "give them a penalty" is enough, knowing that in > the future it may lead to e.g. a very widely used but inaccessible protected > function being ranked highly, then that seems fine to me too. A wider > configuration space means testing is more work, but happy to live with it. > What do you think? > > (With my user-hat on, configurable is fine, though I do strongly feel they > should be off by default, and it seems unlikely many users will change the > defaults.) I'd be ok with off by default, as long as it's possible to turn it on :) https://reviews.llvm.org/D39836 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
