jingham requested changes to this revision. jingham added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
This looks good. I agree with Jonas, however that we might have cases where we end up with two identical completions that have different descriptions, and we shouldn't drop them. ================ Comment at: source/Utility/CompletionRequest.cpp:79 + // Add the completion if we haven't seen the same value before. + if (m_added_values.insert(r.GetUniqueKey()).second) + m_results.push_back(r); ---------------- JDevlieghere wrote: > Do you think there's any value in in checking the description? For example, > if the description was empty for the existing value but a description is > provided for the duplicate? This seems reasonable. For instance, for process attach we might want to do something like: (lldb) process attach -n Foo<TAB> Foo - pid 123 Foo - pid 234 FooBar - pid 345 But then the two Foo's would have the same unique key and you would only print one. Repository: rLLDB LLDB https://reviews.llvm.org/D51175 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits