klimek added a comment. In D54881#1462804 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54881#1462804>, @russellmcc wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation! I do understand your philosophy on this, and > agree with the desired behavior case you brought up where you have put in new > braces. > > After thinking about this more, the thing I really care about is that > clang-format is idempotent with a line filter - i.e., running it twice should > always have the same effect as running it once. > > So, either this fix, or your proposed fix of fixing all lines until the next > correct indentation would meet that idempotence criteria. > > However, I think in this particular case I still prefer my fix - to me, line > filter is meant to limit the effect of clang-format to just fix a particular > change and the fallout from that. However, if the lines _after_ a change > were wrong before, this feels very unrelated to the change that was made - > why is now the time to fix these unrelated lines? I agree and would be happy with the change if it would only change the line-filtered workflow, but this afaict (unless I'm missing something :) will also affect the workflow where the provided range is 0-length range, which has an implicit "format stuff around this" request from the user inside it. I'd be happy with a patch that differentiates these two sides. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54881/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54881 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
