[cfe-dev] [RFC] Adding support for clang-format making further code modifying changes

[Björn Schäpers via cfe-dev]

I'm all in favor of allowing such changes and will help to create and review 
these changes.

Kind regards,
Björn (HazardyKnusperkeks).

Am 10.08.2021 um 10:32 schrieb MyDeveloper Day via cfe-dev:
> Thanks for the response Sam,
> 
> Here is how I see we mitigate the risk:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 11:23 PM Sam McCall <sammccall at google.com 
> <mailto:sammccall at google.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I'm cautiously +1 on const reordering, having previously opposed it and been
>     convinced.
>     I think anyone who's worked on a large shared codebase both before and after
>     clang-format can understand the value here, so I'll focus mostly on the
>     risks and why I think they're acceptable.
> 
>     *Risk: *clang-format will become a grab-bag of features with no clear line -
>     just anything implemented on top of its pseudo-AST.
>     Clang-format's brand is low-level formatting details and I think it's
>     important to preserve this. Const order fits here in users' minds. (So does
>     brace addition/removal).
> 
> 
> I doubt we wouldn't continue to apply the same level of scrutiny on the code 
> reviews and expect them to follow best practices and guidelines, I am expecting 
> us to still be quite circumspect as to what we'd consider.
> 
> To be honest clang-format I think already runs at quite a high review rejection 
> rate, people ask for all sorts of things and we do try to push back pretty hard, 
> landing something can sometimes be pretty torturous to get through review,
> I'm not expecting that to change.
> 
> 
>     *Risk*: The feature will break code and clang-format will no longer be (seen
>     as) reliable. This can make it harder socially or technically to deploy, and
>     cause real damage.
>     I think we need to work hard on mitigating this:
>       - the feature needs careful design and extra scrutiny, like
>     security-critical code
>       - it should be clearly and temporarily marked as experimental, with opt-in
>     required
>       - it should be clearly and permanently marked as "makes assumptions about
>     coding style", with opt-in required.
>       - bugs need to be thoughtfully addressed
>      From what I can see MyDeveloperDay is serious about doing all of this.
> 
> 
> I am, I also think that we shouldn't plough on with individual changes if we see 
> them as potentially ambiguous, I would rather ignore a change if in doubt, I 
> don't feel such features need to be 100% catch all (like how sometimes clang 
> doesn't always tell you about all missing overrides, just as it can rationalize 
> them), This may require more specific options to ensure we know what an 
> tok::identifier actually is in order to avoid ambiguities caused by macros (a 
> little like StatementMacros)
> 
> 
>     *Risk*: clang-format will be overtaken by the complexity of such features,
>     which will outweigh the benefits (if few use them), hurting maintenance,
>     causing bugs etc.
>     However this isn't different from other optional features. Editing tokens
>     tends to be done as a separate pass which is relatively easy to isolate
>     (compared to something like supporting a new language). With complexity
>     isolated, this is mostly just about how maintainers prioritize their
>     time/attention, which must be left up to them.
> 
> 
> To be honest these are likely some of the less invasive features (in comparison 
> to say adding something like adding Whitesmiths style or C#), as you say the 
> "Passes" give us an easy mechanisms to handle the "OptIn" without adding "if 
> (...) everywhere and the passes also tend to be very self contained especially 
> as the Formatting itself is just a Pass in its own right which is performed later.
> 
> I have no concerns over the maintenance other than ensuring we understand how 
> new passes actually work, but the compartmentalization feels on a par to 
> compartmentalization of individual clang-tidy checks.
> 
> 
>     Regarding include-ordering: I think this is a valuable feature if you follow
>     a coding style that allows it to be correct, and it fits well in
>     clang-format's brand. However it wasn't clearly labeled to emphasize its
>     caveats, and in hindsight it shouldn't have been made part of the Google
>     style without further opt-in required.
> 
> 
> To be honest as a developer I like the brutality of include-ordering, breaking 
> my code only tells me it isn't robust enough (likely missing forward 
> declarations or not including what its using)
> 
> The handling of defaults is always difficult as some people want things and 
> others don't, (hence the need for the RFC), but I've always been clear this 
> needs to be "Opt-In" from the start. For the majority of  developers I would 
> expect them to continue to use clang-format as a code formatter and nothing 
> else, but having a ability to make some (not all) obvious changes could 
> potentially be a great help to improving code
> 
> For example how many times do you see in LLVM the review comment that  says 
> "elide the braces" for
> 
> if (x) {
>      return;
> }
> 
> I feel this is something that clang-format could be made to easily handle. This 
> RFC is about gaining a general consensus to let us try. We feel we can add even 
> more value.
> 
> Anyone who knows me, knows I'm very much pro "clang-format all the things"
> 
> MyDeveloperDay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>