>
> > Was/is the 2 correct then? (if it was next(rbegin, 2) that'd be
> equivalent
> > to prev(end, 3), yes?)
>
> I think it is from looking at the test case, looping in martin to see
> whether I'm right :)
At that point in the code, we have [..., PrePrev = '@', Prev = 'SomeToken']
and CurrentTok
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Martin Probst wrote:
>> > Was/is the 2 correct then? (if it was next(rbegin, 2) that'd be
>> > equivalent
>> > to prev(end, 3), yes?)
>>
>> I think it is from looking at the test case, looping in martin to see
>> whether I'm right :)
>
>
> At that point in the cod
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:48 PM, David Blaikie wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Benjamin Kramer via cfe-commits
> wrote:
>>
>> Author: d0k
>> Date: Mon Apr 11 07:19:19 2016
>> New Revision: 265934
>>
>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265934&view=rev
>> Log:
>> [clang-fo
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Benjamin Kramer via cfe-commits <
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Author: d0k
> Date: Mon Apr 11 07:19:19 2016
> New Revision: 265934
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265934&view=rev
> Log:
> [clang-format] Walk backwards from end() instead of
Author: d0k
Date: Mon Apr 11 07:19:19 2016
New Revision: 265934
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=265934&view=rev
Log:
[clang-format] Walk backwards from end() instead of forwards from rend().
This should've been forwards from rbegin(), reverse iterators are just
too confusing to be us
