I think we should discuss what astValue in CppAstNode table ought to be? We have always used this field as a human-readable description about the symbol which can be displayed in the Info Tree for example. However, in some situations this field is used as a meaningful part of the logic. For example syntax highlight uses it to find the borders of a symbol's name.
In case of functions currently astValue contains their signature. This is good for displaying in Info Tree, but not suitable for syntax highlight. By the way now we can't highlight functions until it's fixed. The name and the signature of a function are stored in CppNamedEntity, but I don't think it would be efficient to select all symbols in this table for syntax highlight.
So what is astValue of a function? Maybe this could contain only the function name and the signature could go to some CppFunction table. This way the signature still remains available for Info Tree where it is fetched more rarely.
I think we should discuss what
astValueinCppAstNodetable ought to be? We have always used this field as a human-readable description about the symbol which can be displayed in the Info Tree for example. However, in some situations this field is used as a meaningful part of the logic. For example syntax highlight uses it to find the borders of a symbol's name.In case of functions currently
astValuecontains their signature. This is good for displaying in Info Tree, but not suitable for syntax highlight. By the way now we can't highlight functions until it's fixed. The name and the signature of a function are stored inCppNamedEntity, but I don't think it would be efficient to select all symbols in this table for syntax highlight.So what is
astValueof a function? Maybe this could contain only the function name and the signature could go to someCppFunctiontable. This way the signature still remains available for Info Tree where it is fetched more rarely.