r195256 - Added an option to allow short function bodies be placed on a single line.

[Daniel Jasper]

In ContinuationIndenter::mustBreak().. clang-format does not use that code
at all if everything fits on one line..

However, I am not really saying that that is a better solution.. At any
rate, it is low priority so let's discuss this on Monday..
On Nov 21, 2013 4:11 PM, "Manuel Klimek" <klimek at google.com> wrote:

> So, in general, I think the problem is that we still need to break in the
> "fits into one line" case in some styles:
> void f () {
>   f();
> }
> Here if we have a style that requires the { to go on the next line, we'd
> still generate at least 3 unwrapped lines; thus, even if "void f() {" fits
> into one line, we need to put the break before the { in somewhere, unless
> all of "void f() { f(); }" fits into one line and we can join the lines...
>
> Where would you propose to do that?
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I don't feel strongly about this. However, putting then decision into
>>> mustBreak would just work. You don't need any special casing for the
>>> single-line case as that is handled by a different code path..
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand that yet - if mustBreak retruns true, we'd introduce a
>> break; when we join lines, we'd need to remove that break again, and count
>> the right number of spaces, right?
>>
>>
>>>  On Nov 21, 2013 2:22 AM, "Alexander Kornienko" <alexfh at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Having played with this a bit, I found a few problems with not putting
>>>> the braces into separate lines in the UnwrappedLinesParser:
>>>>   * if we have braces on the same unwrapped line, we'll need to
>>>> introduce a break when laying them out (using TokenAnnotator::mustBreak),
>>>> and we'll have to undo this break when joining lines (IIUC, line joiner
>>>> currently doesn't support this);
>>>>   * when MustBreakBefore is set, we also make TotalLength >
>>>> ColumnLimit, and we'll need to undo this in line joiner, which will also
>>>> add complexity.
>>>>
>>>> Overall, always having the braces on the same unwrapped line doesn't
>>>> seem to be able to simplify the code =\
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Alexander Kornienko <
>>>>> alexfh at google.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseStructura
>>>>>>>>              Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Stroustrup
>>>>>>>> ||
>>>>>>>>              Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Allman)
>>>>>>>>            addUnwrappedLine();
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does it still make sense to report the "{" as its own unwrapped
>>>>>>> line? Seems a bit convoluted to first report multiple lines and then merge
>>>>>>> them afterwards. I think this would make the merging code simpler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also seemed strange to me. Should we instead handle
>>>>>> BreakBeforeBraces in TokenAnnotator? This will require adding TokenType
>>>>>> values for braces starting namespaces, classes/structs and, probably,
>>>>>> enums. I can play with this a bit, it you think it makes sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I might have already done this for enums. I don't think it is
>>>>> essential to add token types for all of these as e.g. enums and namespaces
>>>>> are really easy to detect. But adding token types might be the cleaner
>>>>> solution. I think that this makes sense but I remember having some kind of
>>>>> debate over this with Manuel, so he might have an opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20131121/75bba6b3/attachment.html>