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