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

[Manuel Klimek]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com> wrote:

> In ContinuationIndenter::mustBreak().. clang-format does not use that code
> at all if everything fits on one line..
>
(just so I don't forget all this until Monday): but only per annotated
line, right? So if we don't merge the line, we need to still split out the
{ from the void f() { line (imagine the f() having a long enough name that
the 3 annotated lines don't fit into one line any more, or a second
statement after the f();


>  However, I am not really saying that that is a better solution.. At any
> rate, it is low priority so let's discuss this on Monday..
> On Nov 21, 2013 4:11 PM, "Manuel Klimek" <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>> So, in general, I think the problem is that we still need to break in the
>> "fits into one line" case in some styles:
>> void f () {
>>   f();
>> }
>> Here if we have a style that requires the { to go on the next line, we'd
>> still generate at least 3 unwrapped lines; thus, even if "void f() {" fits
>> into one line, we need to put the break before the { in somewhere, unless
>> all of "void f() { f(); }" fits into one line and we can join the lines...
>>
>> Where would you propose to do that?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20131121/0c65a096/attachment.html>