owenpan added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/Format.cpp:3901 + return Comment.startswith(Prefix) && + (Comment.size() == Size || isblank(Comment[Size])); +} ---------------- HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > owenpan wrote: > > HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > > > rymiel wrote: > > > > Should the space be required? What about `// clang-format off: > > > > reasoning` or similar? > > > > > > > > Also, should this be documented? > > > > Should the space be required? What about `// clang-format off: > > > > reasoning` or similar? > > > > > > > > Also, should this be documented? > > > > > > +1 > > > Should the space be required? What about `// clang-format off: reasoning` > > > or similar? > > > > On second thought, we should make it more restrictive to avoid regressions. > > How about //requiring// a colon, i.e. `// clang-format off:` (but not `// > > clang-format off :`)? > > > > > Also, should this be documented? > > > > Yep. > > > > > Should the space be required? What about `// clang-format off: reasoning` > > > or similar? > > > > On second thought, we should make it more restrictive to avoid regressions. > > How about //requiring// a colon, i.e. `// clang-format off:` (but not `// > > clang-format off :`)? > > > > That's fine by me. But why not also `/**/`? > But why not also `/**/`? If it weren't for the fact that the code which checks for clang-format on/off exists in several places, I wouldn't want this feature added. IMO there's no need to allow `/* clang-format off: */` if we got `// clang-format:` and being more restrictive results in a lower risk of regression. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142804/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142804 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
