[PATCH] D114621: [clangd] Show parameters for construct.

[Kadir Cetinkaya via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

kadircet accepted this revision.
kadircet added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

thanks LGTM!
let me know if I should land this for you.



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp:1054
   // editor, as they might be long.
-  if (ReturnType) {
+  if (ReturnType)
     // For functions we display signature in a list form, e.g.:
----------------
can you add braces around here?


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp:1074
+  if (Type && !ReturnType && !Parameters)
+    // Don't print Type after Parameters or ReturnType
+    Output.addParagraph().appendText("Type: ").appendCode(*Type);
----------------
can you move the comment above the if and also include `as this will just duplicate the information`.


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/Hover.cpp:1065
 
+  if (Parameters && !Parameters->empty()) {
+    Output.addParagraph().appendText("Parameters: ");
----------------
lh123 wrote:
> kadircet wrote:
> > it's a subtle invariant that we only have parameters for functions (which has a return type) or constructor/destructor/conversion-operators (which doesn't have either a type or a return type).
> > 
> > I think we should assert on `Type` not being present here, as otherwise we would probably duplicate parameters in both places. can you also add a condition around `!Type` and have a comment saying ` // Don't print parameters after Type, as they're likely to be mentioned there.`
> We cannot assert here because the `function type` has both `ReturnType`, `Type`, and `Parameters`. I think we only need to not print `Type` when `ReturnType` or `Parameters` are present.
sorry by asserting i meant having it inside the check. this LG, thanks!


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D114621/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D114621