Go to definition on `..`/`..=` should go to the corresponding `Range*` type

[Veykril]

As in 1..2 should go to Range, 1.. to RangeExclusive etc

[duncpro]

I'm going to work on this today.

@rustbot claim

[duncpro]

Like Goto Type Definition, the Goto Definition request consists of a file id and then a cursor offset.

Currently, Goto Type Definition links to Range in the following cases...

Pattern	Links to Range*	Note
|(a..b)	Yes
|a..b	No	(links to a instead)
a|..b	No	(links to a instead)
a.|.b	Yes
a..|b	No	(links to b instead)
a..b|	No	(links to b instead)
(a..b)|	Sometimes	(yes if followed by a space, no otherwise)

(I believe this behavior is a consequence of SyntaxNode::token_at_offset's behavior.)

Right now Goto Definition never links to Range. Is our desire to simply make Goto Definition behave the same as Goto Type Definition currently does (for ranges)?

@Veykril Can you offer guidance?

[Veykril]

(I believe this behavior is a consequence of SyntaxNode::token_at_offset's behavior.)

Yes it is, given the cursor is always in between two characters (not on a character) so there is some decision logic as to whether we consider the char to the left or right (which unfortunately can make things feel inconsistent at times)

Right now Goto Definition never links to Range. Is our desire to simply make Goto Definition behave the same as Goto Type Definition currently does (for ranges)?

Not quite I'd say, go to type definition here works mainly by taking the type of the expression or pattern the cursor is under (which varies as shown by your table). The request here is really only if the cursor is inbetween the two dots of a range I'd say, so using your table I'd expect:

Pattern	Links to Range*	Note
|(a..b)	No	nothing
|a..b	No	(links to a)
a|..b	No	(links to a)
a.|.b	Yes
a..|b	No	(links to b instead)
a..b|	No	(links to b instead)
(a..b)|	No	nothing

for go to def (similar for ..= but there the cursor can be either .|.= or ..|=