[PATCH] D32478: [clang-format] Fix AlignOperands when BreakBeforeBinaryOperators is set

[Daniel Jasper via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

djasper added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765642, @Typz wrote:

> Nop, it's formatted like this:
>
>   bool a = aaaaaa   //
>             == bbbb //
>         && ccccc;
>   
>   bool a = aaaaaa //
>         == bbbb   //
>                + ccccc;
>   
>
> The current way to format operators is not affected: the indentation is done as "usual", then they are unindented by the operator width to keep the alignment...


Ah damn. Didn't think about the precedences. What I wanted was for the highest level to have a one char operator, e.g.

  bool a = aaaaaa //
             << bbbb   //
         | ccccc;

However, you example is also interesting

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765548, @Typz wrote:

> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#765537, @djasper wrote:
>
> > In all honesty, I think this style isn't thought out well enough. It really is a special case for only "=" and "return" and even there, it has many cases where it simply doesn't make sense. And then you have cases like this:
> >
> >   bool = aaaaaa //
> >       == bbbb //
> >       && ccccc;
> >   
> >
> > Where the syntactic structure is lost entirely.
>
>
> It is not lost, extra indent for 'virtual' parenthesis is still there:
>
>   bool a = aaaaaa   //
>             == bbbb //
>         && ccccc;
>   
>
> > On top of that it has runtime downsides for all clang-format users because ParenState gets larger and more costly compare. As such, I am against moving forward with this. Can you remind me again, which coding style suggests this format?
>
> This is just a single extra bit (and there are still less than 16 such bits), so it does change the size of ParenState. As for the compare cost, I think it is within reach of the compiler's optimization, but it may indeed have a slight impact.


I would still be interested in a coding style that recommends this format.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478