steveire added a comment. In D95168#2532458 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#2532458>, @curdeius wrote:
> 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. If it's a drop in replacement (does everything clang-format does and more), what's the benefit for that cost? 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
