r195256 - Added an option to allow short function bodies be placed on a single line.

[Manuel Klimek]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com> wrote:

> I don't feel strongly about this. However, putting then decision into
> mustBreak would just work. You don't need any special casing for the
> single-line case as that is handled by a different code path..
>

I don't understand that yet - if mustBreak retruns true, we'd introduce a
break; when we join lines, we'd need to remove that break again, and count
the right number of spaces, right?


>  On Nov 21, 2013 2:22 AM, "Alexander Kornienko" <alexfh at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Having played with this a bit, I found a few problems with not putting
>> the braces into separate lines in the UnwrappedLinesParser:
>>   * if we have braces on the same unwrapped line, we'll need to introduce
>> a break when laying them out (using TokenAnnotator::mustBreak), and we'll
>> have to undo this break when joining lines (IIUC, line joiner currently
>> doesn't support this);
>>   * when MustBreakBefore is set, we also make TotalLength > ColumnLimit,
>> and we'll need to undo this in line joiner, which will also add complexity.
>>
>> Overall, always having the braces on the same unwrapped line doesn't seem
>> to be able to simplify the code =\
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseStructura
>>>>>>              Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Stroustrup ||
>>>>>>              Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Allman)
>>>>>>            addUnwrappedLine();
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it still make sense to report the "{" as its own unwrapped line?
>>>>> Seems a bit convoluted to first report multiple lines and then merge them
>>>>> afterwards. I think this would make the merging code simpler.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It also seemed strange to me. Should we instead handle
>>>> BreakBeforeBraces in TokenAnnotator? This will require adding TokenType
>>>> values for braces starting namespaces, classes/structs and, probably,
>>>> enums. I can play with this a bit, it you think it makes sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I might have already done this for enums. I don't think it is essential
>>> to add token types for all of these as e.g. enums and namespaces are really
>>> easy to detect. But adding token types might be the cleaner solution. I
>>> think that this makes sense but I remember having some kind of debate over
>>> this with Manuel, so he might have an opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20131121/a425bb48/attachment.html>