> On Apr 11, 2016, at 9:48 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 12:47 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 11, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> James and I’ve been looking at some changes to clang-format, wanted to take
>>> it here first. Just running the new version of clang-format produces a
>>> patch of about 6,500 lines. This is mostly removal of superfluous empty
>>> lines, and removing a space between a type cast and the variable. These are
>>> all good changes IMO (basically bug-fixes in clang-format).
>>>
>>> In addition to that, we’re contemplating the following changes:
>>>
>>> 1) Change the maximum number of empty lines from “2” to “1”. This adds
>>> about 10k to the patch size, and likely has little impact on being able to
>>> cherry-pick across LTS versions.
>>>
>>> 2) Change the struct brace indentation to be the same as we do for “class",
>>> i.e.
>>>
>>> struct Config
>>> {
>>>
>>> instead of as it is today:
>>>
>>> struct Config {
>>>
>>>
>>> This was not possible to do with the old version of clang-format, but it is
>>> now. This adds about 10k lines to the patch.
>>>
>>> 3) clang-format has an option to “sort” #include directives in the source
>>> files. This makes our builds fail in magnificent ways, but obviously we
>>> could fix that. I don’t know how much work it would be, but likely much
>>> more than we can expect to get done before 6.2? Unclear how large this diff
>>> would be, since we have to manually fix a bunch of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> My personal “votes” are
>>>
>>> 1: +1
>>> 2: +0
>>> 3: -0
>>
>> I'm +1, +1, -1 for now.
>>
>> I'd be +1 on (3) using IncludeCategories to specify a standard ordering and
>> fixing the build. But let's treat this as a separate change.
>
>
> BTW is there a way to get clang-format to prefer to break lines a little
> shorter? As a separate change to the above ...
There is, but we agreed ~1 year ago to bump it from 120 (the previous standard)
to 132. Blame Phil. But I don’t think we should change this again, and 132 fits
perfectly in landscape mode on your dot-matrix printer!
Cheers,
— Leif
