[PATCH] D69764: [clang-format] Add East/West Const fixer capability

[Gašper Ažman via cfe-commits]

+1 for not only handling "const". I've often tried getting the various bits
that appertain to a declaration (static const volatile constexpr inline
consteval) sorted in a consistent order - that makes them much more
greppable.

Different patch, I expect, though.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:47 PM Marek Kurdej via Phabricator <
reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:

> curdeius added a comment.
>
> I've been trying to make my opinion on this patch for the last few weeks...
> I was pretty much opposed to introducing non-whitespace chances
> previously, but I'm reviewing my standpoint.
> As mentioned already, there are precedents (include sorting, namespace
> comments, long string splitting).
> I'm however even more wary of adding yet another tool that will be almost
> the same as clang-format. It could work if it were a drop-in replacement of
> clang-format, but that seems to be very much wishful thinking to me.
> First, maintenance burden to verify that the two don't diverge somehow.
> Secondly, the drop-in replacement wouldn't be possible without changing
> clang-format itself (e.g. to ignore style options that are for
> "clang-format++" only). Also, it might divide the users into clang-format
> camp and clang-format++ camp (which may or may not be a problem).
> Lastly, I do think that clang-format can be as reliable with this patch as
> it's now. Breaking code is of course possible but that's the case of many
> style options. And these are bugs that will eventually get fixed. It's of
> course important that this option doesn't break anything ever by default,
> but given that the default is Leave, and it's implemented as an additional
> pass, that should be the case.
> Also, I'd be a bit surprised if people used it in CI immediately after
> this feature has landed without verifying that it doesn't break anything on
> their codebase.
>
> On the other hand, clang-tidy has a corresponding check. I do feel though
> that's a sort of heavyweight tool and much less used than clang-format.
> Also, the placing of const qualifier is by many (at least in my circles)
> associated to the latter tool.
>
> So yes, I'm in favour of landing this patch (though not exactly in the
> current form, I'd prefer more future-proof options for instance, not only
> handling const).
> My (longish) 2 cents.
>
>
> CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
>   https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20210714/ecb93ed8/attachment.html>