I'm sure that Searchfox could have useful highlights. However, as you guessed, this was something that happened within an editor + debugger, so there's only so much we can do in this direction.
Cheers, David On 06/09/2019 15:40, Andrew Sutherland wrote: > On 9/6/19 7:31 AM, David Teller wrote: >> For what it's worth, I recently spent half a day attempting to solve a >> bug which would have been trivial if `a` and `m` prefixes had been >> present in that part of the code. >> >> While I find these notations ugly, they're also useful. > > > Is this something searchfox could have helped with by annotating the > symbol names via background-color, iconic badge, or other means? Simon > and I have been discussing an optional emacs glasses-mode style of > operation which so far would allow for: > > - expansion of "auto" to the actual underlying inferred type. "auto" > would still be shown, and the expanded type would be shown in a way that > indicates it's synthetic like being placed in parentheses and rendered > in italics. > > - inlining of constants. > > > Searchfox does already highlight all instance of a symbol when it's > hovered over, or optionally made sticky from the menu (thanks, :kats!), > but more could certainly be done here. The question is frequently how > to provide the extra information without making the interface too busy. > > But of course, if this was all being done from inside an editor or a > debugger, no matter what tricks searchfox can do, they can't help you > elsewhere. > > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
