Manikishan added a comment. In D64695#1586157 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695#1586157>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> I appreciate what you've done to make this patch less duplicated code..but > now you've almost got to the point where being able to control it all via > configuration. > > I'm with @rdwampler I think you should be able to extend the include > categories...and then this becomes a very powerful capability. There are many > people who use clang-format for a "non" standard style source trees, and they > might like to use such a capability themselves without having to inherit from > NetBSD type. > > I agree it will be complex, but that is a good justification for adding hard > coded a NetBSD style. Thanks, I will try to implement it as suggested. This is my proposal algorithm: 1. Modify Include.Categories by adding one more field for grouping priority. 2. Add support for this third field in sortIncludes. Am I missing anything? Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D64695 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
