[PATCH] D139926: [clangd] Add semantic tokens for angle brackets

[Kadir Cetinkaya via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

kadircet added a comment.

> Note that we use this information to *animate* the matching tokens, i.e. when the cursor is on one of them, both it and its counterpart get a special highlighting. That's why it's so important that the language server guarantees they always come in pairs.

Oh I see the argument here (somehow missed comment, probably because i had a stale window lying around), this totally makes sense. but I am still feeling uneasy due to implementation complexity (it's embarrassing but dealing with `>>` is quite problematic, still, with little value :/) + the UX we'll have in other editors by default.
Especially as this comes as two different `HighlightingKind`s and they're likely to get colored differently, and having your matching brackets in different colors is quite annoying.

I feel like editors can still have a quite good behaviour with existing operator highlights, as one can build an extra layer on top to provide "matching bracket" support, and whenever the data is broken (e.g. non-matching brackets) just keep using the results from last "successful" run.



================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:408
+      Position End = Begin;
+      ++End.character;
+      addToken(*LRange, HighlightingKind::AngleBracketOpen);
----------------
there can be weird cases like (same goes for -1 below):
```foo>\
>```

can you add tests to make sure we're handling these properly (or not producing braces for them if it complicates the logic too much, i don't think there'll be many cases where they pop-up).


================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/unittests/SemanticHighlightingTests.cpp:930
+          $Class[[B]] $LocalVariable_def[[b]];
+          int $LocalVariable_def[[i]] = static_cast$AngleBracketOpen[[<]]int$AngleBracketClose[[>]](3.5);
+          void *$LocalVariable_def[[p]] = reinterpret_cast$AngleBracketOpen[[<]]void *$AngleBracketClose[[>]](0);
----------------
could you also add tests for `>>` and `>>>` to make sure they're handled correctly


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D139926/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D139926