[clangd] Mark type hierarchy as a supported feature in the docs

[nridge]

clang-tools-extra/docs/clangd/Features.rst

264 ↗

(On Diff #209408)

Should I perhaps change type hierarchy's entry in the LSP column from "No" to "Proposed"?

[sammccall]

clang-tools-extra/docs/clangd/Features.rst

264 ↗

(On Diff #209408)

I'm not sure what "no" means, if it doesn't mean "proposed".

Changing the "no" links to say "proposal" and link to it would be useful, I think.
(And we could delete any rows that don't have a proposal)

[nridge]

clang-tools-extra/docs/clangd/Features.rst

264 ↗

(On Diff #209408)

Good idea -- I'll look at that in a separate commit.

[malaperle]

clang-tools-extra/docs/clangd/Features.rst

264 ↗

(On Diff #209408)

The rows that have "no" and don't have proposals meant that we wanted to make proposals for the LSP eventually in order to match other IDEs feature. Many didn't have proposals at the time.

[nridge]

clang-tools-extra/docs/clangd/Features.rst

264 ↗

(On Diff #209408)

Right! I wouldn't delete any rows -- just maybe file (and link to) an LSP issue for any rows that don't already have proposals.

clang-tools-extra/trunk/docs/clangd/Features.rst

 | Implement Method                    | Yes        |   No     |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+
 | Gen. Getters/Setters                | Yes        |   No     |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+
 | Syntax and Semantic Coloring        | No         |   No     |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+
 | Call hierarchy                      | No         |   No     |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+
-| Type hierarchy                      | No         |   No     |
+| Type hierarchy                      | No         |   Yes    |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+
 | Organize Includes                   | No         |   No     |
 +-------------------------------------+------------+----------+