sstwcw added a comment.
@curdeius That would be great.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h:163
+ /// \endcode
+ bool AlignCompoundAssignments;
+
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > This option is not independent of `AlignConsecutiveAssignments` is it?
> > > this will cause confusion when people turn it on without turning on
> > > `AlignConsecutiveAssignments`
> > >
> > > Options have a lifecycle we have noticed
> > >
> > > 1) They start as bool
> > > 2) They become enums
> > > 3) They then end up as a struct of bool
> > > 4) Sometimes the struct becomes of enums
> > >
> > > Whilst I like what you are doing here I fear we will get bugs where
> > > people say I set AlignCompoundAssignments: true but its doesn't work.
> > >
> > > `AlignConsecutiveAssignments` is already gone too far on the enum, it
> > > should be a struct
> > >
> > > so rather than
> > >
> > > ```
> > > enum AlignConsecutiveStyle {
> > > ACS_None,
> > > ACS_Consecutive,
> > > ACS_AcrossEmptyLines,
> > > ACS_AcrossComments,
> > > ACS_AcrossEmptyLinesAndComments
> > > };
> > > AlignConsecutiveStyle AlignConsecutiveAssignments ;
> > >
> > > ```
> > > it should be perhaps
> > >
> > > ```
> > > struct {
> > > bool AcrossEmptyLines,
> > > bool AcrossComments,
> > > bool AlignCompound
> > > } AlignConsecutiveStyle;
> > >
> > > AlignConsecutiveStyle AlignConsecutiveAssignments;
> > > ```
> > >
> > > in the .clang-format file it would become
> > >
> > > ```
> > > AlignConsecutiveAssignments: Custom
> > > AlignConsecutiveAssignmentsOptions:
> > > AcrossEmptyLines: true
> > > AcrossComments: true
> > > AlignCompound: false
> > > ```
> > >
> > > I realise this would be a much bigger piece of work (in the config) but
> > > the existing options would map to the new options, and then we have a
> > > structure for which have space for future expansion.
> > >
> > > The introduction of a dependent option in my view triggers the need for
> > > that config change? @HazardyKnusperkeks
> > > you thoughts, I know we've done this before, what do you think in this
> > > case?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I would even go further (and that I already told the last time). Drop the
> > ``Custom`` and map the old enums to the struct when parsing, so no new
> > option.
> > I would even go further (and that I already told the last time). Drop the
> > ``Custom`` and map the old enums to the struct when parsing, so no new
> > option.
>
> :+1:
>
> That's my preference too. Having both `AlignConsecutiveAssignments` and
> `AlignConsecutiveAssignmentsOptions` is error-prone.
About `AlignConsecutiveAssignments` and `AlignConsecutiveAssignmentsOptions`.
Based on the current YAML infrastructure, it does not seem possible to support
both enum and struct under one name.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119599/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119599
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
