SureYeaah added a comment. In D64717#1585632 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64717#1585632>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D64717#1585542 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64717#1585542>, @SureYeaah wrote: > > > In D64717#1585512 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64717#1585512>, @sammccall > > wrote: > > > > > Are you sure we want to disable extraction here, rather than just do the > > > extraction at a higher level? > > > > > > E.g. if `bar(1,2,3, f[[o]]o(4,5));` seems like it should extract the call > > > too `foo(4,5)`, not fail to trigger entirely. > > > > > > Selecting `f[[o]]o(4,5)` will just extract the `foo` which would be a > > `DeclRefExpr`. We want to extract the `CallExpr` for which we would need to > > select the brackets as well. > > > I agree, but this patch doesn't do that. (I think?) > Instead it bans extraction entirely in this case. Yes it doesn't. Our current model doesn't extend the user selection and as such we only check the commonAncestor of whatever the user has selected. Should this be changed then? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64717/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64717 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
