MyDeveloperDay added a comment.
> What can be done to move this change along? I feel there has to be a fundamental acceptance that it is ok for clang-format to alter code (something it already does with sorting of includes, namespace comments). There were fairly strong opinions that clang-format isn't the best tool to do this (which actually I don't agree with, I think it is, as long as those capabilities are off by default and there is an acceptance they won't be perfect especially in the presence of macros due to lack of AST) My only thought about building another tool would be if it was a drop in replacement for clang-format (tooling allows setting of a path), but it would need to inherit all of clang-format. but to me, this just feels like extra grunt work just to work around why some community don't like it. I guess a consensus is hard to come by, but I don't really know who owns the decision around the future direction of clang-format. 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
