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

[Aaron Ballman]

I think your logic is sound, +1 from me, FWIW.

~Aaron

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 12, 2014, at 3:00 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> 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.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> -Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev