[llvm-dev] Codifying our Brace rules-

[Chris Lattner via llvm-dev]

On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:02 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
> I'll note that reading along I haven't found any of the proposed changes particularly worthwhile.  I'm also not strongly opposed to any of them - I just don't care - but I certainly haven't been convinced there's any clear benefit to be had by changing our current policy.

I agree.  The discussion is also hard to follow, because there are many different competing suggestions and opinions.  There are a couple of people talking about clarifying the rules to be less prescriptive, which seem like it is worth discussing.  I think we should take the suggestion of “always require braces” off the table, because it doesn’t make sense given the impact to the code base.

-Chris

> 
> Philip
> 
> On 6/22/20 1:44 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote:
>> For those who don’t like it, is the currently documented policy broken enough to be important to changing?
>> 
>> I assume you wouldn’t recommend a massive rewrite of the codebase, so we’re going to be with this for quite some time.
>> 
>> -Chris
>> 
>>> On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Steve Scalpone via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Did this conversation reach a conclusion?
>>> 
>>> My ad hoc tally says that a slight majority of the responders preferred to fully brace statements and no one wanted to totally eliminate braces.
>>> 
>>> The technical arguments for fully braced statements were 1) it's considered a slightly safer coding style and 2) commit diffs with fully braced statements may be slightly more to the point.
>>> 
>>> I didn't register any technical arguments for less-than-fully-braced statement -- the preference seemed to be aesthetic.  I may have missed a technical argument.
>>> 
>>> Certainly an "always use braces" rule would be simpler than what's documented now in the LLVM Coding Standards [1].
>>> 
>>> Another option would be to make braces a developer's choice, and ask that those omitting braces please follow the rules documented in [1].
>>> 
>>> [1] https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-braces-on-simple-single-statement-bodies-of-if-else-loop-statements
>>> 
>>> On 6/18/20, 3:56 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:35 AM Momchil Velikov via llvm-dev
>>>    <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> My 2 pennies is braces add unnecessary clutter and impair readability when
>>>> used on a *single-line* statement. I count comments, that are on their
>>>> own line as statement(s).
>>>    +1 for this. I think braces around single-line statements can be
>>>    allowed, but they really shouldn't be mandated, and that's been my
>>>    personal policy for reviews. In particular,
>>> 
>>>      if (!is_transform_applicable) {
>>>        return {};
>>>      }
>>> 
>>>    is very aggravating clutter.
>>> 
>>>    Braces should be required around multi-line statements. Note:
>>> 
>>>    BAD:
>>>      for (...)
>>>        for (...)
>>>          single_line_statement;
>>> 
>>>    GOOD:
>>>      for (...) {
>>>        for (...)
>>>          single_line_statement;
>>>      }
>>> 
>>>    Cheers,
>>>    Nicolai
>>>    --
>>>    Lerne, wie die Welt wirklich ist,
>>>    aber vergiss niemals, wie sie sein sollte.
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>    llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>    https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev