alexfh added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434#513839, @djasper wrote:
> I think we got confused. We once had tried to write an experimental separate > check to comply with Google's style guide. If you want to fiddle around with > that, contact me, I can send you pointers. But as I mentioned we moved away > from that. And I think it makes more sense to re-create the > sort-across-blocks functionality in clang-format and not in clang-tidy. Yep, we definitely got confused. That experimental check actually implemented cross-block sorting, but this caused a bunch of issues. Which makes me think that proper implementation of cross-block include sorting is challenging be it in clang-format or clang-tidy. Clang-format probably makes it even more complex, since a higher safety of transformations is expected from it. https://reviews.llvm.org/D23434 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
