Skip to content

better typeDefiniton on functions #2052

Open
@xdBronch

Description

@xdBronch

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?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    enhancementNew feature or request

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions