rsmith added a comment. In D69764#2057945 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2057945>, @aaron.ballman wrote:
> In D69764#2056104 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2056104>, @rsmith wrote: > > > I also don't think this is something that a user would *want* in > > `clang-format`: changing the location of `const`s is something that would > > likely be done rarely (probably only once) when migrating to a different > > coding style, rather than being done on the fly after each edit to a source > > file. > > > I'm not certain I agree with this. For instance, you can run clang-format as > a precommit step or as part of your CI pipeline to bark at users when they > get formatting incorrect while working on a team project. (We do this > internally with some of our internal projects.) You can do the same with clang-tidy checks. If you're running clang-format but not clang-tidy as part of your CI, it would likely be worth your while to add clang-tidy to your set of CI checks regardless of what we do here. But if you want this only as a CI check, and not for reformatting code as you edit it, then for me that is a fairly strong signal that this does not belong in clang-format. >> Fundamentally, I don't think this transformation is simply reformatting, and >> I don't think it can be done sufficiently-correctly with only a >> largely-context-free, heuristic-driven C++ parser. As such, I think this >> belongs in `clang-tidy`, not in `clang-format`. > > I think clang-tidy has the machinery needed to do this properly, but I think > clang-format is logically where I would go to look for the functionality > (certainly before thinking of clang-tidy) because this is more related to > formatting than not. That said, if we cannot make it work reliably within > clang-format, I'd rather see it in clang-tidy than nowhere. Right now we have a relatively clear line between the tools. clang-format does not parse or really understand the code, and just heuristically puts the whitespace and line breaks in the right place, in a way that is ~always correct. clang-tidy understands the meaning of the program and can suggest changes that are likely correct (but should typically be double-checked by a person). I think this kind of change is in the latter category. I totally agree that it's reasonable to think of this as a reformatting change, just as I think it's reasonable to think of (say) reordering the data members of a class to the start as a reformatting change, or to think of moving an inline function definition out of the class definition as a reformatting change, or parenthesizing certain operators as a reformatting change -- and all of those could also reasonably be required by some house coding style. But I don't think clang-format is the right tool to perform those operations. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
