HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D69764#2532666 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2532666>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
>> 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. I wouldn't mind if it was implemented in 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
