nridge added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang-tools-extra/clangd/SemanticHighlighting.cpp:469
+ auto &AddedLine = DiffedLines.back();
+ for (auto Iter = AddedLine.Tokens.begin();
+ Iter != AddedLine.Tokens.end();) {
----------------
hokein wrote:
> nridge wrote:
> > hokein wrote:
> > > it took me a while to understand this code,
> > >
> > > If the NewLine is `IsInactive`, it just contains a single token whose
> > > range is [0, 0), can't we just?
> > >
> > > ```
> > >
> > > if (NewLine.back().Tokens.empty()) continue;
> > >
> > > bool InactiveLine = NewLine.back().Tokens.front().Kind == InactiveCode;
> > > assert(InactiveLine && NewLine.back().Tokens.size() == 1 && "IncativeCode
> > > must have a single token");
> > > DiffedLines.back().IsInactive = true;
> > > ```
> > An inactive line can contain token highlightings as well. For example, we
> > highlight macro references in the condition of an `#ifdef`, and that line
> > is also inactive if the condition is false. Clients can merge the line
> > style (which is typically a background color) with the token styles
> > (typically a foreground color).
> >
> > I did expand the comment to explain what the loop is doing more clearly.
> thanks, I see.
>
> I think we can still simplify the code like below, this could improve the
> code readability, and avoid the comment explaining it.
>
> ```
> llvm::erase_if(AddedLine.Tokens, [](const Token& T) { return T.Kind ==
> InactiveCode;});
> ```
Done. Note that we still need to set `AddedLine.IsInactive` appropriately. I
did that in the lambda, which feels like a strange thing for an `erase_if`
predicate to do. The alternative would be doing a `count_if` first (but then
we're looping over the tokens twice).
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67536/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D67536
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
