[LLVMdev] RFC: Change coding standard to not indent namespaces ever

Tobias Grosser tobias at grosser.es
Sun Jan 12 05:10:20 PST 2014

On 01/12/2014 12:00 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Currently there is a mixture of indented namespaces and un-indented
> namespaces in both LLVM and Clang. I think this is confusing and it wastes
> developer time debating the issue. I'd like to pick one and stick with it
> consistently.
> Indenting cannot possibly work in many contexts -- file-wide namespaces
> just make no sense to indent. So I don't think we should pick "always
> indent".
> The common pattern to indent is when there is a small body of code which is
> within a namespace. The reason for not indenting large bodies of code is
> that when the namespace spans so much, the indent loses any structural
> value, and turns into just a cost of losing valuable horizontal space in
> which to write code. This makes sense to me.
> But for small blocks of code, the indent has relatively low value -- both
> the start and end are typically visible on the screen. Why bother indenting
> this special case? The value seems very, very low.
> So, I suggest no indent of namespaces ever. I'm happy to make the
> corresponding change to the coding standards. Naturally, I'm not suggesting
> rampant re-indenting of code. I'd just like to set a consistent rule going
> forward so we don't debate this, and know what to do when I see a chunk of
> code and about to make very significant changes to it and want to clean up
> formatting while I'm there.

Hi Chandler,

thanks for pushing to further formalize our coding standards. I fully 
follow your reasoning and want to add that this is what clang-format is 
currently already doing.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list