[llvm-dev] Codifying our Brace rules-

[Philip Reames via llvm-dev]

I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes 
particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - 
I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any 
clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy.

Philip

On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
> For those who don’t like it, is the currently documented policy broken enough to be important to changing?
>
> I assume you wouldn’t recommend a massive rewrite of the codebase, so we’re going to be with this for quite some time.
>
> -Chris
>
>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Steve Scalpone via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Did this conversation reach a conclusion?
>>
>> My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces.
>>
>> The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point.
>>
>> I didn't register any technical arguments for less-than-fully-braced statement -- the preference seemed to be aesthetic.  I may have missed a technical argument.
>>
>> Certainly an "always use braces" rule would be simpler than what's documented now in the LLVM Coding Standards [1].
>>
>> Another option would be to make braces a developer's choice, and ask that those omitting braces please follow the rules documented in [1].
>>
>> [1] https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-braces-on-simple-single-statement-bodies-of-if-else-loop-statements
>>
>> On 6/18/20, 3:56 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>     External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:35 AM Momchil Velikov via llvm-dev
>>     <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> My 2 pennies is braces add unnecessary clutter and impair readability when
>>> used on a *single-line* statement. I count comments, that are on their
>>> own line as statement(s).
>>     +1 for this. I think braces around single-line statements can be
>>     allowed, but they really shouldn't be mandated, and that's been my
>>     personal policy for reviews. In particular,
>>
>>       if (!is_transform_applicable) {
>>         return {};
>>       }
>>
>>     is very aggravating clutter.
>>
>>     Braces should be required around multi-line statements. Note:
>>
>>     BAD:
>>       for (...)
>>         for (...)
>>           single_line_statement;
>>
>>     GOOD:
>>       for (...) {
>>         for (...)
>>           single_line_statement;
>>       }
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Nicolai
>>     --
>>     Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
>>     aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>     https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev