ilya-biryukov added inline comments.

================
Comment at: clangd/Protocol.h:295
+
+struct ClangdConfigurationParams {
+
----------------
malaperle wrote:
> ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > Maybe call it `ClangdConfigurationParamsChange` to make it clear those are 
> > diffs, not the actual params?
> The idea was that we can reuse the same struct for 
> InitializeParams.initializationOptions
Since `InitializeParams.initializationOptions` may also have unset values 
(`llvm::None`), it also seems fine to treat those as a "diff" between the 
default parameters and the new ones.
The reasoning behind naming for me is that if we allow only a subset of fields 
to be set and use the ones that were set override the corresponding values, it 
really feels like an entity describing a **change** to the configuration 
parameters, not the parameters themselves.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one, though. If you'd prefer to keep the 
current name, it's totally fine with me.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D39571



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to