kbobyrev added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/Syntax/Tokens.cpp:270 + for (const syntax::Token &Tok : spelledTokensTouching(Loc, Tokens)) + if (Tok.kind() == tok::identifier) + return &Tok; ---------------- ilya-biryukov wrote: > sammccall wrote: > > ilya-biryukov wrote: > > > NIT: add braces around `if` statement > > Is there some reference for preferred LLVM style for this, or personal > > preference? (Real question, as this comes up a bunch) > > > > I ask because that's my *least*-preferred option - no braces > braces on > > for > braces on both > braces on (only) if. > > > > Added braces to the `for` (maybe that's what you meant?) > Not sure if it's in LLVM style guide, but files inside Syntax folder > definitely use this style: put braces everywhere until you reach the last > level of nesting for non-leaf statements (i.e. having other statements as > children, e.g. loops,. if statements, etc) > > > It's my personal preference, happy to discuss whether having this makes sense. I guess it's a personal preference (also for me), but I don't think there is a strict guideline on that. Interestingly enough, I think there is a piece of code in the styleguide that looks exactly like the code you had: https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#turn-predicate-loops-into-predicate-functions Some Clang subprojects tend to put braces everywhere though. That being said, I guess no braces at all would be the best option here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D71356/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D71356 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits