I would like to have the standard support scope modifiers for tokens. We're considering possibly implementing these at static-ls at work, but the lack of standardization makes it so that we probably will implement "is exported" as a code lens instead initially as most engineers won't have editors that display them.
It seems like this is a pretty broadly applicable concern: whether something is exported public API or internal API. Go considers this so important as to reserve first-character casing for communicating this information, but LSP currently doesn't have a standard way to offer it on other languages.
Prior art: https://clangd.llvm.org/features#modifiers
Clangd uses these like so:
fileScope: static void foo(void) has call and definition sites of foo annotated as fileScopeglobalScope: write(2, "meow", 4) has write as globalScope and defaultLibrary. Similarly for a void bar(void); in the same file since it is exported.classScope: idk, probably member variables. This functionality is really important since this is a confusing part of C++.functionScope: variables which are just inside one function, e.g. int j;
I will note that in my role as a Haskell programmer classScope is not useful to us as we don't have objects with scope that behaves like C++/Java classes, but many languages have an idea of classes and it would be useful for those. I also don't know how e.g. OCaml modules should handle module-local variables. Should "is in scope because of the current module" be a modifier? Should those be "global scope" regardless?
What about nested Python functions?
IMO the most important of these to get standardized is whether something is an export (globalScope) or file-scope only, though.
I would like to have the standard support scope modifiers for tokens. We're considering possibly implementing these at static-ls at work, but the lack of standardization makes it so that we probably will implement "is exported" as a code lens instead initially as most engineers won't have editors that display them.
It seems like this is a pretty broadly applicable concern: whether something is exported public API or internal API. Go considers this so important as to reserve first-character casing for communicating this information, but LSP currently doesn't have a standard way to offer it on other languages.
Prior art: https://clangd.llvm.org/features#modifiers
Clangd uses these like so:
fileScope:static void foo(void)has call and definition sites offooannotated asfileScopeglobalScope:write(2, "meow", 4)haswriteasglobalScopeanddefaultLibrary. Similarly for avoid bar(void);in the same file since it is exported.classScope: idk, probably member variables. This functionality is really important since this is a confusing part of C++.functionScope: variables which are just inside one function, e.g.int j;I will note that in my role as a Haskell programmer
classScopeis not useful to us as we don't have objects with scope that behaves like C++/Java classes, but many languages have an idea of classes and it would be useful for those. I also don't know how e.g. OCaml modules should handle module-local variables. Should "is in scope because of the current module" be a modifier? Should those be "global scope" regardless?What about nested Python functions?
IMO the most important of these to get standardized is whether something is an export (
globalScope) or file-scope only, though.