curdeius added a comment. In D95168#2532410 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#2532410>, @steveire wrote:
> In D95168#2532258 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#2532258>, @MyDeveloperDay > wrote: > >> I wonder if we should consider suggesting a different type of tool for clang >> >> `clang-reformat` >> >> A place where changes such as this and east/west fixer could be actively >> encouraged. > > I don't think this should be done. These kinds of things should be in > `clang-format`. One of the advantages of this and east/west const being in > clang-format is that editors, CI systems and other tools have clang-format > support. They would be unlikely to get support for a new tool. There are > plenty of clang tools which exist but which don't get enough attention to get > support in editors CI tools etc. Not saying that I'm in favour of creating another tool, but... I believe that such a tool, if it were pretty much a drop-in replacement of clang-format, it could profit from the current tooling support. Why? Because most of them let you define the clang-format binary path. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
