owenpan added a comment.
In D107961#2943291 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D107961#2943291>, @MyDeveloperDay
wrote:
>> The above C++ declarations should be inside a class definition, no?
>
> Not really, we don't have to have any context of where we are (in class or
> struct). if you had for example
>
> class A
> {
> #include "myfunctions.h"
> }
>
> you still would want the code in myfunctions.h to be formatted just the same
> (less indentation)
Got it!
> So the following code:
>
> bool foo(int a, Bar)
> override;
> bool foo(int a, Bar)
> override; // comment
>
> Failed on the 13 branch, but is fixed with @krasimir fix, but that isn't
> backported (we need to do that as a minimum I think)
>
> With this revision that is also fixed, the following occurs if I change the
> return type
>
> Bar foo(int a, Bar)
> override;
> Bar foo(int a, Bar)
> override; // comment
>
> And that doesn't feel correct to me. Well not as by default at least. From my
> perspective there seems to be a propensity to think code is K&R, but that
> should be the exception not the rule.
I agree.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107961/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D107961
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
