djasper added a comment.
The Google and Unity style guides have explicit examples of using the one-line
version. The other style guide (at least to me) isn't clear on forbidding what
clang-format currently does.
My gut feeling is that it is not worth the cost of renaming and extending the
current style option. If you are trying to convince ~70 people to use
clang-format, there will be several things where it doesn't do 100% what the
current practice is. However, this issue (like probably several of the others)
is quite an infrequent issue with very limited impact on readability.
================
Comment at: unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:9753
@@ +9752,3 @@
+ CHECK_PARSE("ConstructorInitializer: false", ConstructorInitializer,
+ FormatStyle::CI_Compact);
+ CHECK_PARSE("ConstructorInitializer: true", ConstructorInitializer,
----------------
The reason we commonly accept true/false after migrating to an enum is so that
the config files remain backwards compatible. If we rename the style attribute,
however, more needs to be done to keep this backwards compatible. Setting the
old name to true or false should set the corresponding value of the new name
unless that one is explicitly set.
Repository:
rL LLVM
http://reviews.llvm.org/D14484
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
