[cfe-commits] r82293 - in /cfe/trunk: include/clang/Sema/CodeCompleteConsumer.h lib/Sema/CodeCompleteConsumer.cpp test/CodeCompletion/functions.cpp

[Chris Lattner]

On Sep 22, 2009, at 3:23 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
>>> I like it. We currently provide qualification when the name in the  
>>> base class (or an outer context) is *hidden*, because in that case  
>>> we show the qualification is needed for us to have any chance of  
>>> doing the right thing.
>>
>> Right, I'd expect to see something like this in the 'popup' for P->
>>
>> field1
>> field2         - Base class 'foo'
>> Base::field2   - Base class 'Base', hidden by 'foo::field2'
>> field3
>>
>> etc, where field1/field3 are direct fields in *p.  This way you  
>> don't get noise when dealing with simple structs with no base  
>> classes, etc.
>
> I don't particularly like the idea of putting these longish text  
> strings into the output, and would prefer something shorter and more  
> subtle:
>
> field1
> <i>foo::</i>field2
> field3
> Base::field2

> Two important differences:
>  - the "foo::" for the first field2 is meant to be informative, to  
> show that we're coming from a base class but without inserting any  
> text.

Ok, that works for me.  You'll get a bunch of these though for big  
classes.  To me, it would be nice to have all of the "text to be  
inserted" lined up at the left and have informational stuff off to the  
right.  It's probably just a mental shift I need to make though, not a  
big deal :)

>  - hidden decls should be ranked worse than non-hidden decls.

Definitely.

> Right now, fields found in base classes are ranked worse than fields  
> in the most-derived class, so we actually get something lke
>
> 	field1
> 	field3
> 	field2
> 	Base::field2
>
> which probably isn't what we want.

Doh! :)  Good point,

-Chris