Hi, On 2023-01-21 14:05:41 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 12:59 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Hmm, that could be a deal-breaker. It's not going to be acceptable > > to have to pgindent different parts of the system on different platforms > > ... at least not unless we can segregate them on the file level, and > > even that would have a large PITA factor.
Unless I miss something, I don't think clang-format actually does that level of C parsing - you can't pass include paths etc, so it really can't. > It's probably something that could be worked around. My remarks are > based on some dim memories of dealing with the tool before I arrived > at a configuration that works well enough for me. Could you share your .clang-format? > > Still, we won't know unless someone makes a serious experiment with it. > > There is one thing about clang-format that I find mildly infuriating: > it can indent function declarations in the way that I want it to, and > it can indent variable declarations in the way that I want it to. It > just can't do both at the same time, because they're both controlled > by AlignConsecutiveDeclarations. > > Of course the way that I want to do things is (almost by definition) > the pgindent way, at least right now -- it's not necessarily about my > fixed preferences (though it can be hard to tell!). It's really not > surprising that clang-format cannot quite perfectly simulate pgindent. > How flexible can we be about stuff like that? Obviously there is no > clear answer right now. I personally find the current indentation of variables assignment deeply unhelpful - but changing it would be a very noisy change. Greetings, Andres Freund