hokein added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlight.h:17
+
+enum class SemanticHighlightKind {
+ Variable,
----------------
jvikstrom wrote:
> hokein wrote:
> > LSP proposal is using `Highlighting` rather than `Highlight`, let's align
> > with the LSP proposal, using `Highlighting` in our names (comments,
> > function, class, and files).
> >
> >
> > The name seems too verbose, let's drop the `Semantic`, just use
> > `HighlightingKind`.
> There is also a `DocumentHighlightingKind` enum though. Is there not a
> possibility of confusing people with `HighlightingKind` and
> `DocumentHighlightingKind`?
We have a `DocumentHighlightKind` (without `ing`), but that is in the LSP
layer.
Yeah, it would not be super clear, but if we are in the related context,
`HighlightingKind` is clear -- ClangdServer will use `getSemanticHighlights` to
get all highlight tokens, so I'd prefer shorter names.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63559/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D63559
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
