[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D116569: [libc++] [ranges] Add namespace __cpo to ranges::{advance, next, prev}.

[Arthur O'Dwyer via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Quuxplusone added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/__iterator/advance.h:74
+namespace __advance {
+  struct __fn final : private __function_like {
+  private:
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> var-const wrote:
> > Quuxplusone wrote:
> > > var-const wrote:
> > > > Formatting nit: I think namespaces [aren't supposed to](https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#namespace-indentation) introduce a new level of indentation.
> > > In general yeah, but this is consistent with most other niebloids/CPOs in libc++ today.
> > > `git grep -h struct.__fn libcxx/include/`
> > I don't see a reason for niebloids to diverge from the style guide, and I don't think we should try to be consistent with things that are incorrectly (IMO) formatted. That would largely defeat the purpose of having a style guide if, once an inconsistent piece of code gets into the code base, it effectively takes precedence over the style guide.
> I had missed it, but it does seem more consistent *not* to indent the content of long namespaces since that's what we tend to do elsewhere. Also. it means touching fewer lines, which I guess is good.
So, leave `inline constexpr auto niebloid =` indented, but de-dent `struct __fn` throughout?
If that's the request, I'll do the de-dent in a preliminary commit, and then follow it up with this one (minus the indenting here).


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D116569/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D116569