sammccall added a comment. In D88414#2320859 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88414#2320859>, @sammccall wrote:
> In D88414#2319161 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88414#2319161>, @kadircet wrote: > >> In D88414#2317106 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D88414#2317106>, @sammccall >> wrote: >> >>> Now there's lots of usage (which looks good!) i'm finding it a bit hard to >>> keep track of what the tree will look like overall. >>> >>> At some point it'd be great to: >>> a) bind this to an LSP extension so we can see it in editors >> >> i was also thinking about it and couldn't decide between a "custom command" >> vs "code action". >> >> - the former gives a richer interaction, but requires every editor plugin to >> implement support. >> - the latter is a little bit more restrictive but doesn't require a bunch of >> extra work. >> >> I am happy to go with the "code action" approach initially. WDYT? (not in >> the scope of this patch) > > I'm pretty leery about code action because it's not at all context-sensitive > (not even per-file). Another slighty silly reason: because of layering, a code action is going to have a hard time getting at `ClangdLSPServer`'s profile (or even `ClangdServer`'s). Whereas a custom method will be implemented at that layer. (We could work around this in various ways, but I think we'll create a bit of a mess) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D88414/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D88414 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
