MyDeveloperDay added a comment. If you follow people tweeting about clang-format (as I do) and you look through the bug tracking system, one major criticism of clang-format is that the second clang-format can be different from the first, sometimes an equilibrium can be found sometimes not.
When I started working on clang-format I was encouraged to use verifyFormat() as it tests that scenario and also tries to mess up the format and ensure it returns to the desired state. It found bugs in my code which would have made clang-format worse. Apart from it being the convention I believe it makes for much more readable code, even if there is repetition as I don't need to keep cross referencing variables with rather obscure names `NL_B_3_A_0_I_0` this is unnecessary noise and makes the code overly verbose. No you'll need to check out what the messUp() function is actually doing but I think by and large IMHO we should stick with verifyFormat. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
