Typz added a comment. > Also double-checked with Richard Smith and he agrees that the current > behavior is preferable. For comma and plus this doesn't seem overly > important, but making it: > > aaaaaaaaaa(bbbbbbbbb + ccccccccccc * > ddddddddd); > > > seems really bad to him as this suggests that we are adding both ccccccccccc > and ddddddddd. > > aaaaaaaaaa(bbbbbbbbb + ccccccccccc * > ddddddddd); > > > seems clearer.
And I fully agree with this! But I don't think that would be affected by my patch... I hope it does not at least, and I'll try to double check (and add a test). > And for consistency reasons, we should not treat those two cases differently. The consistency is related only to the implementation of clang-format: for a language (and its users) they are not the same things, comma separating arguments are not operators and are used to separate different expressions. Repository: rC Clang https://reviews.llvm.org/D42787 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
