Skip to content

better typeDefiniton on functions #2052

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
xdBronch opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #2246
Open

better typeDefiniton on functions #2052

xdBronch opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #2246

Comments

@xdBronch
Copy link
Contributor

currently asking for the type definition of a function just goes to the beginning of the functions definition. im not sure what exactly is the general consensus for what this should do (or is it specified exactly in the standard?) but clangd and rust-analyzer seem to take you to the definition of the return type, dont have anything else installed rn :p. naively i think maybe itd be nice to give you the definitions of all the params too?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant