[PATCH] D66221: [clangd] Added highlighting for non type templates.

[Johan Vikström via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

jvikstrom added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:231
+          if (TP->isFunctionPointerType()) {
+            addToken(Loc, HighlightingKind::Function);
+            return;
----------------
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> jvikstrom wrote:
> > ilya-biryukov wrote:
> > > Why do we special-case template parameters, but not other kinds of variables?
> > > We definitely need a comment explaining why template parameters are handled in a special way, but variables, parameters, fields are not.
> > Not quite sure what you mean about variables/parameters/fields not being handled in a special way.
> > 
> > The reason for special casing non type templates is because it probably gives more information/is more valuable to highlight a reference/pointer as a variable rather than a normal template parameter (same for methods/functions).
> > 
> > But maybe they all should just be highlighted as with the TemplateParameter kind instead?
> > Not quite sure what you mean about variables/parameters/fields not being handled in a special way.
> Non-type template parameters are very similar to global and local variables, function parameters, class fields, etc.
> We could also match those on type and highlight differently based on the type.
> 
> > The reason for special casing non type templates is because it probably gives more information/is more valuable to highlight a reference/pointer as a variable rather than a normal template parameter (same for methods/functions).
> However, if a global variable has a function pointer type we do not highlight it as a function. Why would this be different?
> 
> > But maybe they all should just be highlighted as with the TemplateParameter kind instead?
> I would personally vouch for this option. The highlighting functionality lets me understand what the name resolves to; if it's a template parameter and it would be highlighted as a variable instead, this would create confusion on my end. If I need to know the type I'll look at completion results or hover.
> 
> It is my personal preference and I'm ok with this going in a different direction if you feel the opposite is better. Just asking to put the rationale of this decision (why do this only for template parameters and not other things) in a comment somewhere in the source code.
> I would personally vouch for this option. The highlighting functionality lets me understand what the name resolves to;

Very true actually, was a bit unsure what was the correct way to go but this is very true actually.

Changing to just highlight as TemplateParameter. 


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D66221/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D66221