[PATCH] D44609: [Clang-Format] New option BeforeLambdaBody to manage lambda line break inside function parameter call (in Allman style)

[Francois JEAN via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

Wawha marked an inline comment as done.
Wawha added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1307
+       (Style.BraceWrapping.BeforeLambdaBody && Current.Next != nullptr &&
+        Current.Next->is(TT_LambdaLSquare)));
   State.Stack.back().IsInsideObjCArrayLiteral =
----------------
klimek wrote:
> Wawha wrote:
> > klimek wrote:
> > > klimek wrote:
> > > > I think I misunderstood some of this the first time around (and thanks for bearing with me :) - iiuc we want to break for Allman even when there's only one nested block. I think I'll need to take another look when I'm back from vacation, unless Daniel or somebody else finds time before then (will be back in 1.5 weeks)
> > > So, HasMultipleNestedBlocks should only be true if there are multiple nested blocks.
> > > What tests break if you remove this change to HasMultipleNestedBlocks?
> > All cases with only one lambda in parameter are break. The Lambda body with be put on the same line as the function and aligned with [] instead of putting the body [] on another line with just one simple indentation.
> > 
> > So if restore the line to :
> > 
> > ```
> > State.Stack.back().HasMultipleNestedBlocks = Current.BlockParameterCount > 1;
> > ```
> > 
> > Here some cases.
> > FormatTest.cpp, ligne 11412:
> > 
> > ```
> > // With my modification
> > FunctionWithOneParam(
> >     []()
> >     {
> >       // A cool function...
> >       return 43;
> >     });
> > 
> > // Without my modification
> > FunctionWithOneParam([]()
> >                      {
> >                        // A cool function...
> >                        return 43;
> >                      });
> > ```
> > The "{" block of the lambda will be aligned on the "[" depending of the function name length.
> > 
> > 
> > You have the same case with multiple lambdas (FormatTest.cpp, ligne 11433):
> > 
> > ```
> > // With my modification
> > TwoNestedLambdas(
> >     []()
> >     {
> >       return Call(
> >           []()
> >           {
> >             return 17;
> >           });
> >     });
> > 
> > // Without my modification
> > TwoNestedLambdas([]()
> >                  {
> >                    return Call([]()
> >                                {
> >                                  return 17;
> >                                });
> >                  });
> > ```
> Do we want to always break before lambdas in Allman style?
Perhaps not always. I make that current implementation, because, I have some difficulty to make the other. I alreay tried to modified the code to have that :

```
TwoNestedLambdas([]()
    {
      return Call(
          []()
          {
            return 17;
          });
    });
```
With just a tabulation after the line return. But with no success for the moment.

I could try again to implement it, and why not, add an option to tell if we break or not before the lambda. And set it to false by default.



Repository:
  rC Clang

https://reviews.llvm.org/D44609