ioeric added inline comments.

Comment at: clangd/ClangdLSPServer.cpp:194
+        if (!Replacements)
+          return replyError(ErrorCode::InternalError,
+                            llvm::toString(Replacements.takeError()));
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > nit: since we are not spelling out the return type here, it might be 
> > clearer if we do:
> > ```
> > replyError(...);
> > return;
> > ```
> > 
> > `return replyError(...)` makes me wonder what the return type is.
> This trick was used in the code before (there are usages below), so I figured 
> it's ok to do this.
> If it's confusing I'll change it everywhere.
I guess it's not confusing after figuring out what `replyError` returns. There 
is obviously tradeoff between LOC and readability. Either is not too bad. So up 
to you :)

Comment at: clangd/ClangdServer.cpp:209
+  auto Action = [Contents, Pos, TaggedFS,
+                 PCHs](Path File, decltype(Callback) Callback,
+                       llvm::Expected<InputsAndPreamble> IP) {
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > nit: I'd probably use a different name than `Callback` for this parameter 
> > for clarity.
> I actually think we should keep it this way. It's a bit tricky to grasp, but 
> it has two important advantages:
>   - Makes referencing `Callback` from outer scope impossible
>   - saves us from coming up with names for that superficial variable, i.e. 
> should it be called `InnerCallback`, `Callback2`, `C` or something else?
> Is it that too confusing or do you feel we can keep it?
> Makes referencing Callback from outer scope impossible. 
For lambdas, I think we should rely on captures for this instead of the 
parameter names.
>saves us from coming up with names for that superficial variable, i.e. should 
>it be called InnerCallback, Callback2, C or something else?
I thought this is a common practice with llvm coding style :P I would vote for 
`C` :) 

> Is it that too confusing or do you feel we can keep it?
It is a bit confusing when I first looked at it, but nothing is *too* confusing 
as long as the code is correct ;) I just think it would make the code easier to 

Comment at: unittests/clangd/SyncAPI.cpp:69
+  llvm::Expected<Tagged<SignatureHelp>> Result = Tagged<SignatureHelp>();
+  (void)(bool)Result; // Expected has to be checked.
+  Server.signatureHelp(File, Pos, capture(Result), OverridenContents);
ilya-biryukov wrote:
> ioeric wrote:
> > I'd expect this to be checked by callers. Would `return std::move(Result);` 
> > work?
> The reason why we need it is because `capture(Result)` writes return value of 
> the callback to the `Result` variable. But we have to first check the 
> default-constructed value that was there **before** calling 
> `Server.signatureHelp`
I think we should probably fix the behavior of `capture` since this changes the 
behavior of `llvm::Expected` in user code - the check is there to make sure 
users always check the status. But here we always do this for users.

  rCTE Clang Tools Extra

cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to