[cfe-dev] clang-format: New options welcome?

[Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:58 PM Robin Sommer via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> The blog posting at https://blog.benoitblanchon.fr/clang-format-5/
> seems to suggest that new options for clang-format are welcome even if
> the potential audience might be on the smaller side ("Pro-tip 2: Don't
> discard Clang-format because a detail is missing").
>
> A while ago I had submitted a patch for two new options that was
> turned down; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D25171. Not having these
> options means we cannot use clang-format at all for a number of
> projects. I'm wondering if the policy has changed these days and such
> a patch might be acceptable now if I updated and resubmitted it. Any
> advice?
>

The policy didn't change. It's still a trade-off between usefulness /
audience and feature creep that's made on a case-by-case basis.


> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> --
> Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * robin at icir.org * www.icir.org/robin
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20170920/ce4af8af/attachment.html>