On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree with Zachary on the overall principle – and I would be > willing to clang-format functions when I modify them. I’m concerned about > a specific class of functions, though. Let’s say I have a function that > has had lots of activity (I’m thinking of, for example, ParseType off in > the DWARF parser). Unfortunately, such functions tend to be the ones that > benefit most from clang-format. > > In such a function, there’s a lot of useful history available via svn > blame that helps when fixing bugs. My concern is that if someone > clang-formats this function after applying the *k*th fix, suddenly I've > lost convenient access to that history. It’s only available with a fair > amount of pain, and this pain increases as more fixes are applied because > now I need to interleave the info before and after reformatting. > > Would it be reasonable to mark such functions as “Don’t clang-format”? > That could be also interpreted as a “// TODO add comments so what this does > is more understandable” > Well again by default it's only going to format the code you touch in yoru diff plus 1 or 2 surrounding lines. So having it format an entire function is something you would have to explicitly go out of your way to do. So it's a judgement call. If you think the function would be better off clang-formatting the entire thing, do that. If you just want to format the lines you're touching because you were in there anyway, that's the default behavior.
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
