[cfe-dev] clang-format: inconsistency in function arg layout (C++)

[Oleg Smolsky via cfe-dev]

Hey Jonas, here is a patch that adds the functionality I described 
(under BinPackArguments=false).

https://reviews.llvm.org/D52676

Could you take a look please?

Thanks!
Oleg.

On 2018-09-11 08:10, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> The patch was a baby step in right direction, but it does not function 
> properly. Let me try to make it work, I'll post it then.
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:12 AM, Jonas Toth via cfe-dev 
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Oleg,
>
>     could you please send that patch to `reviews.llvm.org
>     <http://reviews.llvm.org>`. That makes it easier to review and
>     discuss on the code.
>
>     Best, Jonas
>
>
>     Am 10.09.2018 um 22:47 schrieb Oleg Smolsky via cfe-dev:
>>     OK, the functionality is a special case introduced in 2014 here:
>>     8228889b01404d7e59270b1f97a83977531a7748.
>>
>>     The minimal hack is to check for the preceding comma... but that
>>     breaks some "literal" cases... So, I need to make these
>>     selections even more particular (to either exclude literals or
>>     only include lambdas). Does this sound right?
>>
>>     On 2018-09-10 12:47, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
>>>     Hi, I've just boiled down an interesting C++ lambda formatting
>>>     trait and would like to clarify the tool's behavior. Consider
>>>     the following snippet (please view with a fixed-width font):
>>>
>>>     void f() {
>>>       something->One(
>>>           [this] {
>>>             Do1();
>>>             Do2();
>>>           },
>>>           1);
>>>       something->Two(1,
>>>                      [this] {
>>>                        Do1();
>>>                        Do2();
>>>                      },
>>>                      1);
>>>     }
>>>
>>>     There is an inconsistency in the way lambda args are formatted,
>>>     depending on whether it is first (the "One()" call above) or not
>>>     (the "Two()" call above). Is there some internal guide that the
>>>     tool uses to decide between the two layouts? Or is it just an
>>>     artifact of the implementation?
>>>
>>>     More generally, would you entertain a patch that forces the
>>>     format one way or another? (Perhaps even with a user-defined
>>>     setting?)
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Oleg.
>>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cfe-dev mailing list
>>     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org  <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev  <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     cfe-dev mailing list
>     cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>     <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Oleg Smolsky
> *Member of Technical Staff
> twitter-3-16.png <https://twitter.com/cohesity> linkedin-6-16.png 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/cohesity>
>
> <http://signatures.cohesity.com/uc/57f5aca20e0f7567c3300bbe>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180928/99113301/attachment.html>