HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment.

In D137327#4233652 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137327#4233652>, @MyDeveloperDay 
wrote:
> In D137327#4233551 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137327#4233551>, @thieta wrote:
>
>> In D137327#4233290 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D137327#4233290>, 
>> @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
>>
>>> because of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61785 should this 
>>> really be reverted?  is basically saying `X * Y {`  must be `X *Y{`  but 
>>> that obviously not the case
>>
>> Tricky one. Any ideas on how we could differentiate those two cases? Maybe 
>> impossible? Not sure what the normal way to handle ambiguous things like 
>> that in clang-format is.
>
> I would prefer we avoid the regression that this issue caused, even if both 
> are equally viable. because otherwise we get blamed for "changing defaults" 
> @owenpan, @HazardyKnusperkeks what are your thoughts?

I have no idea when the release was/is. If it is not released it's a no 
brainer, revert. Otherwise I'm torn... for everyone skipping this release a 
revert would change nothing, for those who keep up to date we could be 
ping-ponging.

Can we solve the problem, without knowing what identifiers are types and what 
are objects/variables for all valid and not pathologic cases?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D137327/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D137327

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to