klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813#942137, @Typz wrote:
> As far as "parsing" and formatting inside the block is concerned, this is > indeed unrelated (and would totally work if all macros where specified with > some preprocessor definitions). > > But identifying the 'opening' token and generating the matching 'closing' > comment are totally related; it would seem very strange to have an option to > specify that TESTSUITE() macros are parsed as namespace, then another option > to indicate that namespace declared by this macros are actually closed with > another macro call... Putting the namespace into the macro gives the macro an abstraction - if somebody were to change, for example, the namespace portion with a class definition, would you still want the closing comments or not? https://reviews.llvm.org/D37813 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
