owenpan added a comment. In D95168#3100376 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#3100376>, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> In D95168#3099920 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#3099920>, @owenpan wrote: > >> In D95168#3099739 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#3099739>, @MyDeveloperDay >> wrote: >> >>> - Look further into possible Removal (I have an idea for how this might be >>> possible, and super useful for LLVM where we don't like single if {} ), I'd >>> like to round out on this before introducing the options rather than having >>> to change them later >>> >>> - Should we add the possibility of removal should we change the option name >>> to "AutomaticBraces" (thoughts?) >> >> As mentioned in D95168#3039033 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D95168#3039033>, I >> think it would be better to handle the removal separately. The LLVM Coding >> Standards has an entire section >> <https://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#don-t-use-braces-on-simple-single-statement-bodies-of-if-else-loop-statements> >> about this. Some of the listed exceptions/examples there can make things >> more difficult. > > Difficult, yes. But I think it should be in one option. > It hasn't to be implemented everything right from the start. And we could > give all those cases a name and a different setting, so that the entire > document would be mappable to a `.clang-format` with a convenience setting > for all options at once. What I meant to say is that we should have a separate patch for the removal implementation. I was not opposed to putting both insertion and removal under an `enum` option like "AutoBraces: Never, Insert, Remove, LLVM, ..." 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
