klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813#958116, @Typz wrote:
> OK.
>
> So you mean a solution like the one discussed earlier would be the way to go?
>
> > I mean that we can configure macros in the format style, like "define A(X)
> > class X {". I'm not 100% sure whether we would just try to use the
> > Preprocessor for this, or whether we'd want to only allow a small subset of
> > actual macros, but the general idea would be the same: The
> > UnwrappedLineParser would parse the macro at the expansion location A(X)
> > into an unwrapped line, and then parse the expansion into a child line,
> > with the tokens tha tare not in the argument of the call being marked as
> > fixed (parent child might also be better inverted).
>
> (As a side-note, I want to stress out that we would actually need a
> 'reversible' description to support the namespace case, to allow generating
> the end-of-namespace comment)
I believe this will be needed for various reasons. The plan is to make this
similar to how we format #ifdef trees, for which clang-format already has full
support.
> Is there any work on that side, any timeline when this may be supported ?
Some initial design work has been done, and Krasimir said that he's interested.
No timeline though :(
https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
