Oops, sorry I was so excited that this could just solve the issue that I forgot to answer your question.
In general, the clang-format strives to adopt widely used styles, which I'm not sure if we would be considered widely used. Aside from that, another concern was that it could take a while for our style proposals to make it upstream and for it to be useful. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 6:12 PM Michael Park <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it worth adding our own style? > > > > I noticed other have (LLVM, Google, Chromium, Mozilla, WebKit.). How >> hard is it? > > > I was just looking into this again and *Mozilla* was added as the newest > *BreakBeforeBraces* style. It breaks before braces on enum, function, and > record definitions (struct, class, union). I think we can actually use that > one and be done with it. Having looked through the codebase, we wrap the > braces for *enum* for about half of the cases. It would be about 35 > instances that we have to fix from what I can see in our codebase. What do > you think? > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 5:14 PM Benjamin Mahler <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Is it worth adding our own style? >> >> I noticed other have (LLVM, Google, Chromium, Mozilla, WebKit.). How hard >> is it? >> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Michael Park <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > There are a few syntactical Mesos style guidelines that I would like to >> > propose to drop. They are: >> > >> > 1. Open braces for namespace should not be wrapped. >> > *NOTE*: The Google style guide does not wrap the brace after >> > *namespace*, >> > and the Mesos style guide does not mention a rule at all. But it is >> > consistent throughout the codebase. >> > 2. Overloaded operators should be padded with spaces. >> > 3. Comments should be wrapped at 70 characters. >> > >> > The main motivation is that as a community we would like to reduce the >> > discrepancy between what *clang-format* produces. This is a dual >> effort, as >> > we work on improving *clang-format* to support some of our style which >> is >> > popular in the C++ community as well. Wrapping the function arguments to >> > avoid "jaggedness" for example is a feature request which is being >> tracked >> > at: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23422 >> > >> > Going forward, the proposal is to update all of the instances of (1) and >> > (2) at once. For (3), we can simply relax the constraint from 70 to 80 >> > without touching the existing comments. >> > >> > Does anyone have any strong opinions about dropping any of the 3 rules >> > above? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > MPark. >> > >> >
