[PATCH] D82594: Clarify a bit the guideline on omitting braces, including more examples (NFC)

[Erich Keane via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

erichkeane added a comment.

A few small nits, but I don't sufficiently care enough about the rule, so long as there IS one (hence my reason for opening this can of worms).  I added @lattner since he requested that he be added to changes to the coding standards in the past.



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:1583
+hoisted above the ``if`` or loop statement, see below).
+Similarly, braces should be used when single-statement body is complex enough
+that it becomes difficult to see where the block containing the following
----------------
used when _a_ single-statement body
?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:1610
+    // surprisingly long comment, so it would be unclear without the braces whether
+    // the following statement is in the scope of the if
+    handleOtherDecl(D);
----------------
end in a period?


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:1623
+  // Use braces for the `if` block to keep it uniform with the else block.
+  if (isa<FunctionDecl>(D)) {
+    handleFunctionDecl(D);
----------------
I'll note that this example has been VERY inconsistently enforced.  Typically I've seen the rule in if/else chains be; "Once you START using braces, use them for the rest".


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:1628
     // surprisingly long comment, so it would be unclear without the braces whether
-    // the following statement is in the scope of the else.
+    // the following statement is in the scope of the if
     handleOtherDecl(D);
----------------
Same here, end in a full stop?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D82594/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D82594