[cfe-dev] Clang-format: Braces Indent Style Whitesmiths

[Daniel Jasper]

Could you clean up the patch (your previous version contained changes to
some unrelated files) and upload it to phabricator (reviews.llvm.org)? I'd
like to patch in the code, take a look and give you precise feedback.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 11:00 PM, JVApen <JVApen at gmail.com> wrote:

> One thing fixed, another one broken; that's why you have tests.
>
> I did found the ContinuationIndenter::getNewLineColumn(),
> if I understand it right it tells you how many spaces are added in front
> of some symbol.
> Though because this both handles the enum values and the braced lists,
> reducing the indent for the enums (return State.Stack.back().Indent -
> Style.IndentWidth;) results in all other stuff to get messed up.
>
> This makes the following code:
>
> void someLongFunction(
> ....int someLongParameter) const
> ..{
> ..}
>
> into:
>
> void someLongFunction(
> ..int someLongParameter) const
> ..{
> ..}
>
> Is their any way to correct the indent selectively when parsing the
> enumeration and return it without incorrect correction in all other cases?
>
>
> JVApen
>
>
> On 1 January 2015 at 21:33, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Enums are special. The reason is that we want to treat them
>> somewhat close to other braced lists. They do not really contain individual
>> statements or declarations and thus we parse them into a single unwrapped
>> line. The actual wrapping/indentation is then done later in
>> ContinuationIndenter.cpp. The logic might be a bit convoluted there, let me
>> know if you need further help
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 4:14 PM, JVApen <JVApen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Most of appears to be working with the Whitesmiths; however I still have
>>> one group of tests failing.
>>> These tests contain enumerations, the scenario is the following:
>>>
>>> enum X
>>>   {
>>>   Y = 0
>>>   }
>>>
>>> which gets formatted to:
>>>
>>> enum X
>>> {
>>>   Y = 0
>>> }
>>>
>>> If I call addUnwrappedLine() at the end of parseEnum() the result
>>> becomes the following:
>>>
>>> enum X
>>>   {
>>>     Y = 0
>>>   }
>>>
>>> The debug information tells me the following:
>>> Line(0): enum[47] identifier[47]
>>> Line(1): l_brace[47] identifier[47] equal[47] numeric_constant[47]
>>> r_brace[47]
>>> Line(0): eof[47]
>>>
>>> Hower for this result I expect it to be more like:
>>> Line(0): enum[47] identifier[47]
>>> Line(1): l_brace[47]
>>> Line(2): identifier[47] equal[47] numeric_constant[47]
>>> Line(1): r_brace[47]
>>> Line(0): eof[47]
>>>
>>> However I'm guessing that I am missing something obvious;
>>> I do however suspect parseBracedList() from doing something which I
>>> don't completely understand
>>> OR something in the UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp file to mess this up.
>>>
>>> Any idea on where to look for the responsible?
>>>
>>> ​JVApen​
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 December 2014 at 20:14, Daniel Jasper <djasper at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:53 PM, JVApen <JVApen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was looking into the clang tools to experiment with; hoping to
>>>>> convince some colleagues that tooling can save us time.
>>>>> Anyhow; since I was trying to take baby steps; clang format looked
>>>>> like a very good start.
>>>>> Unfortunately, we would not be programmers if we wouldn't do things a
>>>>> bit different than the rest of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current code; with too many files; uses the Whitesmiths style
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Whitesmiths_style> at most
>>>>> places.
>>>>> Though this is not yet supported by clang format.
>>>>> Going through the code, adding support for it did not look like a big
>>>>> thing; since Allman and GNU are very similar.
>>>>> The thing I did not realize is that both of them indent all code by
>>>>> one level compared to the {,
>>>>> which is not done by Whitesmiths style.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That actually shouldn't matter much. The whether or not to break before
>>>> the "{" is controlled by calling addUnwrappedLine() one more time whereas
>>>> the indentation is controlled by changing Line->Level. Basically all you
>>>> should need to do is to change the order of "addUnwrappedLine();
>>>> ++Line->Level;" for the addUnwrappedLine() call for the "{". Unfortunately,
>>>> there is no nice abstraction for this and you'll need to look at how to do
>>>> this for the different kinds of syntactic elements individually. I can look
>>>> into it and give more help if you get stuck.
>>>>
>>>> I already wrote a unit test, based on the Allman unit test; useful for
>>>>> test driven development
>>>>> and experimented already with the code in
>>>>> lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp
>>>>> Though can't seem to find out how to prevent the extra indent;
>>>>> does anyone with more codebase experience have an idea where to start?
>>>>>
>>>>> JVApen
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cfe-dev mailing list
>>>>> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20150103/336e1800/attachment.html>