jp4a50 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1665-1669 + const auto DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth = + Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth < 0 + ? Style.ContinuationIndentWidth + : Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; + NewIndent = CurrentState.LastSpace + DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; ---------------- HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > owenpan wrote: > > jp4a50 wrote: > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > > Using -1 to mean `ContinuationIndentWidth` is unnecessary and > > > > > somewhat confusing IMO. > > > > Please disregard my comment above. > > > Just to make sure we are on the same page, does this mean that you are > > > happy with the approach of using `-1` as a default value to indicate that > > > `ContinuationIndentWidth` should be used? > > > > > > I did initially consider using `std::optional<unsigned>` and using empty > > > optional to indicate that `ContinuationIndentWidth` should be used but I > > > saw that `PPIndentWidth` was using `-1` to default to using `IndentWidth` > > > so I followed that precedent. > > Yep! I would prefer the `optional`, but as you pointed out, we already got > > `PPIndentWidth`using `-1`. > From the C++ side I totally agree. One could use `value_or()`, which would > make the code much more readable. > And just because `PPIndentWidth` is using -1 is no reason to repeat that, we > could just as easily change `PPIndentWidht` to an optional. > > But how would it look in yaml? In YAML we wouldn't need to support empty optional being *explicitly* specified - it would just be the default. So specifying `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth: 4` would set the `std::optional<unsigned>` to `4` but if `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` was omitted from the YAML then the optional would simply not be set during parsing. Of course, if we were to change `PPIndentWidth` to work that way too, it would technically be a breaking change because users may have *explicitly* specified `-1` in their YAML. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
