[PATCH] D132131: [clang-format] Adds a formatter for aligning trailing comments over empty lines

[Björn Schäpers via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.


================
Comment at: clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst:865
+
+  * ``TCAS_DontAlign`` (in configuration: ``DontAlign``)
+    Don't align trailing comments.
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> yusuke-kadowaki wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > Is Don'tAlign the same as Leave that other options support  (for options it best if we try and use the same terminiology
> > > 
> > > Always,Never,Leave (if that fits)
> > IMHO, `Leave` probably fits but `DontAlign`  is more straightforward. Also `DontAlign` is used for other alignment styles like `BracketAlignmentStyle` so it would be more natural.
> Leave should mean do nothing.. I'm personally not a fan of DontAlign because obvious there should be a ' between the n and the t but I see we use it elsewhere
> 
> But actually now I see your DontAlign is effectively the as before (i.e. it will not add extra spaces) 
> 
> The point of Leave is what people have been asking for when we introduce a new option, that is we if possible add an option which means "Don't touch it at all"  i.e.  if I want to have
> 
> ```
> int a;           //  abc
> int b;   /// bcd
> int c;                                    // cde
> ```
> 
> Then so be it
> 
> 
Leave is a nice option, yes.
I think it is complementary to `Dont`.

But maybe if the option is called `AlignTrailingComments` one may interpret `Leave` not as "don't touch the position of a comment at all" (what do we do, if the comment is outside of the column limit?), but as "just don't touch them, when they are somewhat aligned". Just a thought.


================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h:373
+  /// Different styles for aligning trailing comments.
+  enum TrailingCommentsAlignmentStyle : int8_t {
+    /// Don't align trailing comments.
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> yusuke-kadowaki wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > all options have a life cycle
> > > 
> > > bool -> enum -> struct
> > > 
> > > One of the thing I ask you before, would we want to align across N empty lines, if ever so they I think
> > > we should go straight to a struct
> > > all options have a life cycle
> > 
> > I see your point. But we are checking `Style.MaxEmptyLinesToKeep` to determine how many consecutive lines to align. So currently no need to specify it from the option. You'll find the implementation below.
> I think its a bad idea to hijack a different option to do this..I don't think it means the same thing and I think what whilst it might work there will be someone somewhere who doesn't want it to behave like this and will call it out as a bug.
> 
> 
Since you are strictly against `Enabled` what to put into a struct?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D132131/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D132131