owenca wrote: > > If we were to add // clang-format off-next-line, would "next line" mean the > > next physical or logical/unwrapped line? > > I would expect it to apply only to the physical line, similar to how other > formatters work. However, the main concern doesn’t seem to be about its > behavior but rather about extending clang-format directive with new options > at all.
This is an essential detail missing from the description of the proposed option for us to accept a new option and review the patch. > From my perspective, these options are just additional ways to control > formatting and give users more flexibility. These options aren’t intended to > eliminate `clang-format` usage, and based on user feedback on the issue, it > seems there are cases in which these options are useful. For > [instance](https://github.com/athomps/lammps/blob/ceb9466172398e9a20cb510528b4b17f719c7cf2/src/set.h#L15-L17), > > ```c++ > // clang-format off > CommandStyle(set,Set); > // clang-format on > ``` > > vs > > ```c++ > CommandStyle(set,Set); // clang-format off-line > ``` For simplicity and clarify, I might accept a lone comment above the (physical) line to be skipped by clang-format, but not a trailing comment. > If these options introduce significant complexity that could lead to > regressions without improving the development experience, I believe the > discussion should be wrapped up, and both the PR and issue should be closed. > Otherwise, it would be helpful to continue the discussion in the issue to > gather more insights into why users need these changes. Does that make sense? I’m fine with continuing the discussion in the GitHub issue, but I’m still with @mydeveloperday on this one. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/118566 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
