r181187 - Change indentation when breaking after a type.

[Manuel Klimek]

I'm on it. Sorry that it got lost for so loing.


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote:

> Copying Daniel, Manuel and Reid.
>
>
> On 06/21/2013 08:27 AM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>
>> On 05/08/2013 03:58 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: djasper
>>>> Date: Mon May  6 03:27:33 2013
>>>> New Revision: 181187
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-**project?rev=181187&view=rev<http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=181187&view=rev>
>>>> Log:
>>>> Change indentation when breaking after a type.
>>>>
>>>> clang-format did not indent any declarations/definitions when breaking
>>>> after the type. With this change, it indents for all declarations but
>>>> does not indent for function definitions, i.e.:
>>>>
>>>> Before:
>>>> const SomeLongTypeName&
>>>> some_long_variable_name;
>>>> typedef SomeLongTypeName
>>>> SomeLongTypeAlias;
>>>> const SomeLongReturnType*
>>>> SomeLongFunctionName();
>>>> const SomeLongReturnType*
>>>> SomeLongFunctionName() { ... }
>>>>
>>>> After:
>>>> const SomeLongTypeName&
>>>>      some_long_variable_name;
>>>> typedef SomeLongTypeName
>>>>      SomeLongTypeAlias;
>>>> const SomeLongReturnType*
>>>>      SomeLongFunctionName();
>>>>
>>>
>>> No judgment on how good/bad this is, but this particular case seems
>>> inconsistent with LLVM's defacto standard style. Function declarations
>>> still don't tend to have the indentation for the function name. (I'm
>>> looking at llvm/include/llvm/DIBuilder.h at the moment)
>>>
>>
>
> This was also reported as llvm.org/PR16157.
>
> The change is in fact really disturbing as all code in LLVM uses the
> previous style and we get now a lot of noise and inconsitency in files
> that are formatted with the after version. Making clang-format a whole
> less useful for me and other people [1].
>
> This is now in since six weeks without feedback to the people that
> raised the very same concern right at the point when this commit
> happened. Daniel or Manuel, would it be possible to revert this change
> for LLVM style?
>
> Cheers,
> Tobi
> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/**gmane.comp.compilers.clang.**scm/74975<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.scm/74975>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20130621/4979494b/attachment.html>