timon-ul wrote: > It's up to you, but we can add tests to clang/test/CodeCompletion.
Probably a good call, I was also looking at that, but given we currently have all tests for this in `clangd` and also I am not even sure if anyone besides clangd is using it? Not sure why there was never a test for it there. > Could you please add tests for `static operator[]`, regardless of whether it > is handled correctly? I also thought about this operator, but quite frankly what would this test look like? As far as I can tell current behaviour is that there is no signature help for even non static `operator[]`. I guess we could exactly test for there being none, so if we ever implement signature help for this we would get a test failure if we forget about this case, but given we do not have signature help for this till today I am just wondering if this is something people would even care about. Please share your thoughts tho @zwuis . https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/199192 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
