krasimir added a comment.
Do we have some widely used code style that requires the new option
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options)?
I agree with @MyDeveloperDay that this option as-is is likely not addressing
all the cases where we would want this to apply.
I don't think we should later be adding something like `BreakBeforeClassInit`
-- IMO whichever mechanism is used to control `struct` cases should also apply
to `class` cases (modulo commonly used style guide rules).
Note that there is a big difference in context between this and, e.g.,
`AfterStruct`: when you're defining a `struct`, generally the struct keyword is
required, and that's why the check `Line.startsWith(tok::kw_struct)` in that
context is appropriate. In the context of initialization this is not the case,
so, as a user I'd expect `BreakBeforeStructInit` to work in cases like this
where the `struct` keyword is not present:
struct point {
int x, y;
};
int f() {
// here:
point p =
{
x = 1,
y = 2,
};
}
Since clang-format doesn't really do any semantic analysis, it might be more
appropriate to generalize this concept in a way that more closely matches the
C++ syntax structures, e.g., to something that controls the breaking behavior
before `{` in appropriate cases of some copy-list-initialization forms
(https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/list_initialization), but without
some style guide to drive the design it's hard to tell what would make sense.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:5063
+ " a = 1,\n"
+ " b = 2,\n"
+ "};",
----------------
anastasiia_lukianenko wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > anastasiia_lukianenko wrote:
> > > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > > could you add an additional test without the trailing `,`
> > > Yes, I can add the test, but before I want to discuss the expected result.
> > > Now with my patch and BeforeStructInitialization = false the behavior is
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > struct new_struct struct_name = {a = 1};
> > > struct new_struct struct_name = {a = 1, b = 2};
> > > ```
> > > And with BeforeStructInitialization = true:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > struct new_struct struct_name =
> > > {a = 1};
> > > struct new_struct struct_name =
> > > {a = 1, b = 2};
> > > ```
> > > Is it okay?
> > that is kind of what I expected, and adding the `,` is a known trick to
> > cause it to expand the struct out.
> >
> > I think its worth putting a test in, but I'll ask the same question what do
> > you think it should look like?
> I agree with you. And I'll add these tests to patch.
I'd expect the lines starting with `{` to be indented in those cases, probably
by +4 spaces in LLVM-like style (ContinuationIndent), consistently with other
places where the RHS of a binary expression gets wrapped on a new line:
Not:
```
struct new_struct struct_name =
{a = 1};
struct new_struct struct_name =
{a = 1, b = 2};
```
But:
```
struct new_struct struct_name =
{a = 1};
struct new_struct struct_name =
{a = 1, b = 2};
```
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91949/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D91949
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
