Max_S added a comment. In D98237#2643815 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237#2643815>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> 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. Ok then I will change the tests accordingly. This reasoning should be written down somewhere. In D98237#2643880 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237#2643880>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote: > I'd be quite interested to understand what the impact (if any) would be on > javascript and C# formatting I have not done anything in javascript a quick google search showed no such modifiers in classes. Do you have an example? C# seems to handle it like java and then the modifiers become properties of the functions member, there should be no influence. 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
