Typz added a comment.

> We'll just format those cases in a somewhat weird way and users can either 
> accept that or change their code to not need it.

I think we have a really diverging opinion on this. From my experience, people 
will mostly accept the output of the formatter without question : therefore I 
think we should strive to have the formatter format things as "correctly" as 
possible. And looking at the existing options and various complex formatting 
algorithms implemented I think this reasoning has been applied to some extent 
:-)
So I personnally would be willing to add some code/options even for such kind 
of corner cases; but then I am not the one maintaining the clang-format project.

> I don't particularly care which of these options we go with, but I would be 
> really hesitant to introduce an style flag for it. This is so rare, that 
> almost no one needs this flag (or should need this flag). Thus, the cost of 
> the flag (discoverability of flags for users, increased maintenance cost, 
> etc.) strongly outweigh the benefit.

Any change will still require a new flag somewhere, since the currently 
implemented behavior is :
1- the documented way to format in Google style
2- the expected format in LLVM style, according to the clang-format unit test

It should thus probably not be changed.

> IMO, for the same reason, this specific issue will not become part of the 
> style guide of projects.

I definitely agree on this, but it is actually part of some styles (e.g. 
Google's)

> If you want to change something, I'd vote for making clang fall back to this 
> behavior:
> 
>   case A:
>     {
>       stuff();
>     }
>     moreStuff();
>     break;
>   }
>    
> 
> i.e. not let it put the "{" on the same line as the "case ..." if there is a 
> trailing statement (other than "break;" maybe).

I am fine with that formatting (though I did not implement it since it requires 
tweaking the code in more places, instead of essentially modifying a single 
function like I did).


Repository:
  rC Clang

https://reviews.llvm.org/D43183



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to