HazardyKnusperkeks marked 3 inline comments as done.
HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2835-2841
+ // FIXME: We need an annotation on the paren to really know if it is a
+ // function call:
+ // ... foo() && requires ...
+ // or a declaration:
+ // void foo() && requires ...
+ // there is no distinction possible right now. We go for the latter,
+ // because it's more likely to appear in code.
----------------
HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> Quuxplusone wrote:
> > I think it's weird that your heuristic parses backward rather than forward.
> > I would think that the next token //after// the `requires` keyword tells
> > you what it is with pretty high probability:
> > `requires requires` — it's a clause
> > `requires identifier` — it's a clause
> > `requires {` — it's an expression
> > `requires (` — unclear, apply further heuristics
> >
> > Or are those heuristics already present in trunk, and this PR is just
> > dealing with the "unclear" case?
> That would be so much better, but I can't easily look forward. `Next` is
> still `nullptr`, until I call `nextToken()`, but then I'm already moved along.
>
> But this got me thinking, at least for the easy stuff I can just go forward
> and don't start on the keyword in `parseRequiresClause()` and
> `parseRequiresExpression()`. The paren case is more tricky, but I will try
> something.
Present in main everything is a clause, except for requires expressions in a
constraint expression. So the stuff where you use the requires expression in a
"normal" boolean expression are misparsed and thus most likely misformatted.
There is actually a `peekToken()`, let's see if this is better.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119138
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
