klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813#945125, @Typz wrote:
> I don't think this is really relevant for this tool: if someone changes the > implementation of the macro, then *they* must indeed if it should not be > formatted like a namespace (and keep the clang-format configuration > unchanged), or if it should now be formatted like a class (and thus make > changes to clang-format configuration). Here we are not defining what the > macro does, but how clang-format should indent it : in most case I don't > think the indentation format should actually depend on the way it is > implemented... Ok, that's probably where our different opinions come from - I would want a macro to be formatted to reflect how it's implemented, because otherwise I'm going to be surprised when I look at the implementation, and I consider surprises to be something to avoid in programming in general, where possible. That said, I'm also then a bit confused by your tests - they seem to currently format a mixture of namespace and class formatting, and combine the indentation of a class-scope with namespace end comments. https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
