malaperle added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D47223#1109247, @ilya-biryukov wrote:
> I'm not sure if we have tests for that, but I remember that we kept the
> enumerators in the outer scope so that completion could find them..
> Am I right that this patch will change the behavior and we won't get
> enumerators in the following example:
>
> /// foo.h
> enum Foo {
> A, B, C
> };
>
> /// foo.cpp
> #include "foo.h"
>
> int a = ^ // <-- A, B, C should be in completion list here.
>
Not quite but still potentially problematic. With the patch, A, B, C would be
found but not ::A, ::B, ::C.
> It's one of those cases where code completion and workspace symbol search
> seem to want different results :-(
> I suggest to add an extra string field for containing unscoped enum name,
> maybe into symbol details? And add a parameter to `Index::fuzzyFind` on
> whether we need to match enum scopes or not.
> +@ioeric, +@sammccall, WDYT?
I'll wait to see what others think before changing it. But I feel it's a bit
odd that completion and workspace symbols would be inconsistent. I'd rather
have it that A, ::A, and Foo::A work for both completion and workspace. Maybe
it would complicate things too much...
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D47223
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
