v1nh1shungry added a comment.

Oops! Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

You're right, but I currently get stuck there and need more time. And I prefer 
to clear the existing patches simultaneously if you don't mind.

Or do you think I should merge the modification of this patch into there and 
give up this?



================
Comment at: 
clang-tools-extra/clangd/refactor/tweaks/RemoveUsingNamespace.cpp:212
   // Produce replacements to add the qualifiers.
   std::string Qualifier = printUsingNamespaceName(Ctx, *TargetDirective) + 
"::";
   for (auto Loc : IdentsToQualify) {
----------------
v1nh1shungry wrote:
> tom-anders wrote:
> > v1nh1shungry wrote:
> > > We can replace `printUsingNamespaceName` with `printNamespaceScope` here 
> > > so that we can get `a::foobar()` in the test. 
> > > 
> > > However, it can sometimes cause redundancy such as in the 10th test. 
> > > 
> > > And I don't know whether it is worth it. WDYT?
> > Just making sure I understood this correctly:
> > 
> > If you replace `printUsingNamespaceName` with `printNamespaceScope`, then...
> > 
> > - ...in the test you added it would result in `a::foobar()` instead of 
> > `a::b::foobar()` (which is better)
> > - ... but in this test (which is the 10th test if I counted correctly):
> >      
> > ```
> >  namespace a::b { struct Foo {}; }
> >   using namespace a;
> >   using namespace a::[[b]];
> >   using namespace b;
> >   int main() { Foo F;}
> > ```
> > what would be the result..? would you get `a::Foo` instead of `a::b::Foo`?
> > 
> Sorry, I mean the next test. I read `10` from the inlay hint but I forgot the 
> index starts from `0` :(
> 
> The test I want to mention:
> ```
> namespace a::b { struct Foo {}; }
> using namespace a;
> using namespace a::b;
> using namespace [[b]];
> int main() { Foo F;}
> ```
> 
> We will get `a::b::Foo` in both the 10th and 11th tests. So in the 10th test, 
> we don't get any benefits and don't sacrifice anything. In the 11th test, we 
> get more redundancy than the existing version.
> 
> Apologize again for my mistake.
FYI, we have a discussion left here.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D138028/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D138028

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to