patgro1
patgro1
Correct me if im wrong but right now the language server does not parse the full folder structure recursively nor maintain a cache of what exists where. I think the...
> @patgro1 That sounds sensible to me. However, number 1 is quite a large effort and probably shouldn't be done inside svls. Number 1 is essentially a compiler, maybe with...
@kraigher If it is still up, i can jump in and implement this! I would probably need a jump start as to in which section of code it should be!...
> One thing to consider is if it uses the toml file or a comment pragma? Personally I’d be a strong advocate for the toml way. « Polluting » code...
That would make sense! Let me write a couple of possible formats and I’ll propose then all here.
We could potentially blackbox a full library using something like this: ```toml [libraries] my_third_party_lib = [] ``` That would 100% should intent of blackboxing the lib. However, it would not...
> I think that the ignore section is more elegant. It also could have a ignore file section. I’m not sure about the use case of an ignore file option....
Yeah that was my concern too! It is not just hard, it might be impossible. How do you differentiate between a type in a name and a component in an...
That works too! I do not see another big use case of components ignoring. So do we settle on library ignoring and a seperate section without pattern matching?
I think it’s a matter of taste and practicability… for me personally, I’m rarely using vendors libs. When I do, it’s mostly dedicated components (transceivers, pll, mmcm, buf) and it’s...