HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:5006-5010
+ return !((Previous && (Previous->is(tok::kw_for) || Previous->isIf())) ||
+ (Right.Next &&
+ (Right.Next->is(tok::l_paren) ||
+ (Right.Next->is(tok::r_paren) &&
+ (Right.NestingLevel == 0 || Previous->is(tok::star))))));
----------------
gedare wrote:
> HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > This is horrible to read.
> >
> > Could you split this into multiple statements? Maybe with lambdas, I don't
> > know.
> >
> > But I have no intention to ever understand that condition.
> Sure. I was just following the prevailing style in this code base. I'll
> refactor.
> Sure. I was just following the prevailing style in this code base. I'll
> refactor.
No problem. We have some of this occurrences.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:7237-7243
+ EXPECT_EQ(StringRef("functionCall(\n"
+ " paramA, paramB, paramC\n"
+ ");\n"
+ "void functionDecl(\n"
+ " int A, int B, int C\n"
+ ");"),
+ format(Input, Style));
----------------
I know you copy what is there, but could you use verifyFormat? You can port the
other checks also, but are not obligated to.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137762/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D137762
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
