HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp:1221
+ if (Style.EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier &&
+ PreviousLine->Last->isOneOf(tok::semi, tok::r_brace) &&
+ RootToken.NewlinesBefore == 1)
----------------
thezbyg wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > maybe I don't understand the logic but why is this `r_brace` and shouldn't
> > we be looking at the "Last Non Comment" token?
> I think that the logic is to only add empty line when access modifier is
> after member function body (`r_brace` indicates this) or declaration of
> field/function. If this check is changed to look at "last non comment" token,
> then empty line will be inserted in code like this:
> ```
> struct Foo {
> int i;
> //comment
> private:
> int j;
> }
> ```
But with the given Name it should add an empty line there! Otherwise you should
use an enum and not a bool to control wether a comment should suppress the
empty line or not. Also you should make the exception(s) clear with unit tests.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineFormatter.cpp:1222-1223
+ PreviousLine->Last->isOneOf(tok::semi, tok::r_brace) &&
+ RootToken.NewlinesBefore == 1)
+ ++Newlines;
+ else if (!Style.EmptyLineBeforeAccessModifier &&
----------------
A tab?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:8612-8625
+ verifyFormat("struct foo {\n"
+ "#ifdef FOO\n"
+ "private:\n"
+ "#endif\n"
+ " int i;\n"
+ " int j;\n"
+ "}\n",
----------------
Just curios, any reason why the struct is repeated? I don't seem to notice a
difference.
And by the way, you are missing the `;` at the end of the definition, I don't
know if that affects clang-format.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93846/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D93846
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
