Max_S added a comment.
In D98237#2616193 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237#2616193>, @MyDeveloperDay
wrote:
> Just out of interest and we are supposed to ask for this but can you point to
> public style guide that uses this style. (actually I don't mind if other
> formatting tools have this capability and you highlight it, like astyle or
> editorConfig etc)
>
> From my perspective this seems like a reasonable suggestion. (even if I'm
> unlikely to use it myself ;-))
I can not specify an other formater or a style guide that uses this style. The
problem is that clang-format is rather destructive at this point. Other
formatters like astyle or the one from CLion keep empty lines after an access
modifier. The behavior of clang-format before this patch was to remove all
empty lines after an access modifier. The option `MaxEmptyLinesToKeep` is
currently ignored at this point.
After thinking a little bit about this:
If the removal of all lines after an access modifier is rather a bug than a
feature, then the change:
if (PreviousLine && PreviousLine->First->isAccessSpecifier() &&
(!PreviousLine->InPPDirective || !RootToken.HasUnescapedNewline))
- Newlines = std::min(1u, Newlines);
+ Newlines = std::max(1u, Newlines);
if (Newlines)
would solve this problem.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:9205
+ "};";
+ EXPECT_EQ(test1NL, format(test0NL));
+ verifyFormat(test1NL);
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> why can't you just verifyFormat them all?
Yes. I will change this in the next update.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:9212
+ StyleWithLine.EmptyLinesAfterAccessModifier = 1u;
+ EXPECT_EQ(test2NL, format(test0NL, StyleWithLine));
+ EXPECT_EQ(test2NL, format(test1NL, StyleWithLine));
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> yeah I'm not a fan of this like this... sorry... just write the test out in
> long form, when it goes wrong I don't have to be a compiler to understand
> what is going wrong I can just see it.
I can change this, but the current output of the tests is (I forced the error):
```
/<path>/llvm-project/clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:72: Failure
Expected: Expected.str()
Which is: "class Foo {\nprivate:\n\n int i;\n};"
To be equal to: format(Expected, Style)
Which is: "class Foo {\nprivate:\n int i;\n};"
With diff:
@@ -1,5 @@
class Foo {
private:
-
int i;
};
```
Which is actually human readable in this case. Shall I still change it?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D98237
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
