steveire added a comment. Making a separate tool for this makes no sense. Especially as you are only proposing it to satisfy one (or are there more) vocal objector.
The objections to this make no sense. If you don't want to use it, then don't enable it. That principle applies whether "the way to enable it" is "enable this option" or "use this other tool instead". The latter is just more inconvenient. There is no other difference. Don't impose that on users just because of unreasonable objection. Maintainership sometimes means discarding objections that make no sense. It seems to me that there are two ways forward: 1. Land this (Yes. Do this. This is what makes sense) 2. - Expose this feature in another tool with a very similar name - Somehow tell users that the other tool exists and should be used instead - Realize some years from now that we have two tools where we should have one and this is inconvenient for users - Merge your new tool into clang-format - Rejoice and wish this had been done in 2020 The outcome is the same, but it's a real disrespect to users to not just land this in clang-format now. The objection to doing so makes no sense, so it should be considered and dismissed (it has not been ignored). 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
