LokiAstari added a comment. Hope you don't mind me chiming in:
> Roughly go ahead with what you are suggesting, although the option should not > be called AccessModifierStandardIndent, as that carries no meaning and > actually is far from the "standard" way. Reasonable names that spring to mind > are: Though I personally disagree on the more standard technique :-) Since I am the newbie to this I am not going to fight on that point (though I suspect if we meet up for some beers we could have a spirited debate). > AccessModifiersCauseAdditionalIndent or > (Additional)IndentAfterAccessModifiers. How about "AccessModifiersUseNormaIndent" as we are indenting by a normal indent width. But I am not going to fight over the name when it comes down to it. > Be even more "clever" with AccessModifierOffset (I can come up with various > ways from negative numbers to special numbers, none of them really good). I don't think this is a good idea (but as the newbie no strong feelings). Unfortunately a lot of large projects have stated using this is a standard part of their formatting; got to this project too late to prevent that :-O > Deprecate AccessModifierOffset and instead use an enum with a few dedicated > settings. The issue with this is getting all projects to update their settings with the new version. Not sure this is a great user experience. https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
