djasper added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2206
+ const SmallVectorImpl<FormatToken *> &Comments,
+ const FormatToken* NextTok) {
bool CommentsInCurrentLine = true;
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to improve the code quality a bit if we stick with
> this design?
I think comments might actually help here, but also this isn't too bad. As in,
when writing the comments, it might become more obvious how to write this
better.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2207
+ const FormatToken* NextTok) {
bool CommentsInCurrentLine = true;
+ int StartOfSectionAlignedWithNextToken = -1;
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> Need to add comments about this if we decide we may go with this.
Yeah.. Commented comment handling is best comment handling :-D
================
Comment at: lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2210
+ if (NextTok) {
+ for (int i = Comments.size() - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
+ if (Comments[i]->OriginalColumn ==
----------------
I think we use "unsigned" in most of these loops.
And to avoid and edge conditions put this at the top of the function:
if (Comments.empty())
return;
================
Comment at: lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.h:118
+ void organiseComments(const SmallVectorImpl<FormatToken *> &Comments,
+ const FormatToken *NextTok);
void flushComments(bool NewlineBeforeNext);
----------------
krasimir wrote:
> @djasper: considering what this code does, what would be a better name of
> this?
Maybe analyzeCommentAlignment? Or determineCommentAlignment?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D29626
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
