Quuxplusone added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:7652
+ verifyFormat("test < a - 1 >> 1;");
verifyFormat("test >> a >> b;");
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> IMO you should use `"test < a | b >> c;"` as your test case here, to reassure
> the reader that it doesn't depend on the fact that `... 1;` is visibly not a
> variable declaration.
> Personally I'd also like to see `"test<test<a | b>> c;"` tested on the very
> next line, to show off the intended difference between the two. (Assuming
> that I understand the intent of this patch correctly.)
> (I also switched to a bitwise operator just for the heck of it; that makes
> this expression just a //very tiny bit// less implausible — but still highly
> implausible, to the point where I question why we're special-casing it.)
Btw, a much-bigger-scope way to fix this would be to teach clang-format about
"input encoding" versus "output encoding." The only time clang-format should
//ever// be inserting space in the middle of `>>` is if it's translating
C++11-encoded input into C++03-encoded output. If the input is known to already
be C++03-encoded, then breaking up an `>>` token into a pair of `> >` tokens is
//guaranteed// to introduce a bug.
Right now, my impression is that clang-format has a concept of "output
encoding" (i.e. "language mode") but has no way of knowing the "input encoding."
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100778/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D100778
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
