MyDeveloperDay added subscribers: HazardyKnusperkeks, owenpan, krasimir, sammccall, curdeius, klimek. MyDeveloperDay added a comment.
In D108765#2967363 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D108765#2967363>, @FederAndInk wrote: > Thank you for your explanations, I understand now. > > But as I look into `clang/docs/tools/dump_format_style.py` I see that it does > not entirely generate `clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst` it replaces > the lines between `{START,END}_FORMAT_STYLE_OPTIONS` > > I understand your point, but as of now, the inconsistency comes from the part > that is not auto-generated, are you suggesting editing `dump_format_style.py` > to have simpler types such as `string`? Then how should we replace > `std::vector`? Something like `Type[]` e.g. `string[]`? > > Or maybe we should first include `BasedOnStyle` into `dump_format_style.py`. > Then take care of how to render types? > > What do you suggest? I am genuinely asking, as I really don't know what would > be the best way to do things. Maybe we should include other people? I don't > really know who to add as reviewers for that, but I think, the way to show > types, should be discussed? > > As for detailing `RawStringFormat`, it wasn't the purpose of this patch, and > maybe it should have its own? You are correct the file isn't 100% generated and some of it comes from another .h file too. But now we have you interesting in making a contribution which you clearly are lets think about how we might do this. To hook into the clang-format team I always recommend adding the #clang-format <https://reviews.llvm.org/tag/clang-format/> project, (which I added to this review), but also I recommend passing the review via @krasimir , @HazardyKnusperkeks , @curdeius there are some others who are hear often like @owenpan and @sammccall and of course @klimek (who started all this). Please also of course add me @MyDeveloperDay I try to check the reviews daily as one of my frustrations was not being able to get things reviewed so I try to be pretty active. From my perspective I do like the idea of substituting out the `std::string` and `std::vector` for something like `string[]` how about we start with something simple like trying to fix the cases for `AttributeMacros (std::vector<std::string>)` maybe with just simple substitution. We can pass that via the rest of the team and see what they feel even if we ultimately have both AttributeMacros (in configuration `string[]`) or something like that, I'm not con convinced anyone is using this documentation to know its a std::vector! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D108765/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D108765 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
