[LLVMdev] RFC: Change coding standard to not indent namespaces ever

[Renato Golin]

LGTM.

--renato


On 12 January 2014 11:00, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently there is a mixture of indented namespaces and un-indented
> namespaces in both LLVM and Clang. I think this is confusing and it wastes
> developer time debating the issue. I'd like to pick one and stick with it
> consistently.
>
> Indenting cannot possibly work in many contexts -- file-wide namespaces
> just make no sense to indent. So I don't think we should pick "always
> indent".
>
> The common pattern to indent is when there is a small body of code which
> is within a namespace. The reason for not indenting large bodies of code is
> that when the namespace spans so much, the indent loses any structural
> value, and turns into just a cost of losing valuable horizontal space in
> which to write code. This makes sense to me.
>
> But for small blocks of code, the indent has relatively low value -- both
> the start and end are typically visible on the screen. Why bother indenting
> this special case? The value seems very, very low.
>
> So, I suggest no indent of namespaces ever. I'm happy to make the
> corresponding change to the coding standards. Naturally, I'm not suggesting
> rampant re-indenting of code. I'd just like to set a consistent rule going
> forward so we don't debate this, and know what to do when I see a chunk of
> code and about to make very significant changes to it and want to clean up
> formatting while I'm there.
>
> -Chandler
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140113/b8159cf2/attachment.html>