djasper added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765548, @Typz wrote:
> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765537, @djasper wrote: > > > In all honesty, I think this style isn't thought out well enough. It really > > is a special case for only "=" and "return" and even there, it has many > > cases where it simply doesn't make sense. And then you have cases like this: > > > > bool = aaaaaa // > > == bbbb // > > && ccccc; > > > > > > Where the syntactic structure is lost entirely. > > > It is not lost, extra indent for 'virtual' parenthesis is still there: > > bool a = aaaaaa // > == bbbb // > && ccccc; Ah, right, I was thinking about something else (commas where we don't add extra indentation. Anyhow, I don't think what you are writing is what clang-format produces. How could it indent relative to the "&&" when placing the "=="? It doesn't know how far to unindent at that point, I think. > > >> On top of that it has runtime downsides for all clang-format users because >> ParenState gets larger and more costly compare. As such, I am against moving >> forward with this. Can you remind me again, which coding style suggests this >> format? > > This is just a single extra bit (and there are still less than 16 such bits), > so it does change the size of ParenState. As for the compare cost, I think it > is within reach of the compiler's optimization, but it may indeed have a > slight impact. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
