[lldb-dev] clang-format now supports return type on separate line

[Zachary Turner via lldb-dev]

Also this is the same standard that applies to the rest of LLVM.
 clang-format your patches.  Just because we haven't been consistently
following the rules until now doesn't mean we should continue to not follow
the rules going forward.  This way eventually the codebase slowly converges
towards a properly formatted one.  If clang-format does something that you
think looks awkward with respect to the surrounding code (perhaps within a
single logical block or whatever else) then just touch a line of code in
the surrounding area so that clang-format will do it too. Since it only
formats the differential, you have as much control as you need to produce
something that a) is consistent with the rules, and b) doesn't look awkward
with respect to surrounding code.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 10:11 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree.  I don't think anything will be awkwardly formatted
> with regards to the rest of the file.  The biggest thing this is going to
> fix are whitespace at the end of lines, line breakign conventions, and
> space between function name and parentheses.
>
> If we're not going to enforce a coding style, why have one at all?
>  clang-format enforces it.
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:41 AM Todd Fiala <todd.fiala at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Glad to see clang-format getting some improvements.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I'm aware, this is the last major incompatibility between
>>> LLDB's style and clang-format's feature set.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate it if more people could try it out with a few of
>>> their patches, and let me know if any LLDB style incompatibilities arise in
>>> the formatted code.
>>>
>>> I would eventually like to move towards requiring that all patches be
>>> clang-formatted before committing to LLDB.
>>>
>>
>> Question to the group on that last part.  I think if we have a large body
>> of code that is just getting a few tweaks to a method, having the patch run
>> through the formatter could lead to some pretty ugly code.  Imagine a few
>> lines of a file awkwardly formatted related to the rest of the file.  Since
>> we're not trying to reformat everything at once (which makes for difficult
>> code traceability), and given there was a large code base to start with
>> before LLDB was part of LLVM, I'm not sure we want a blanket statement that
>> says it must go through clang-format.  (I personally would be fine with
>> doing whole new functions and other logical blocks of code via clang-format
>> when inserted into existing code, but I think it probably extreme when
>> we're talking about new little sections within existing functions).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Todd
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20160121/b7248e1d/attachment-0001.html>