On 14.11.2023 15:59, Luca Fancellu wrote: > > >> On 13 Nov 2023, at 16:27, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> >> On 13.11.2023 16:20, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> On 13 Nov 2023, at 11:31, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >>>> On 08.11.2023 10:53, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Standard: C++03 >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> From the documentation: Parse and format C++ constructs compatible with >>>>> this standard. >>>> >>>> Since I continue to be puzzled - iirc you said this is because of lack >>>> of availability of "C99" as a value here. What's entirely unclear to >>>> me is: How does this matter to a tool checking coding style (which is >>>> largely about formatting, not any lexical or syntactical aspects)? >>>> >>>>> This value is used also in Linux. >>>> >>>> Considering how different the two styles are, I don't think this is >>>> overly relevant. >>> >>> Ok, maybe I understand your point, you are looking for a reason to declare >>> this configurable instead >>> of not specifying it at all? >> >> Not really, no. Here I was merely saying that with the styles being >> sufficiently different, what Linux uses is probably not very significant >> for our own decision. >> >>> If it’s that, from what I understand clang-format will use the default >>> value if we don’t specify anything >>> for this one, so it will take ‘Latest’. I think we should put a value for >>> this one to fix it and don’t have >>> surprises if that behaviour changes and seeing that also in Linux that >>> value is fixed increased my >>> confidence. >>> >>> However, if you feel that we should not specify it, I’ve done a test and >>> not specifying it is not changing >>> the current output. I can’t say that for a different clang-format version >>> though or if changes happen in the >>> future. >> >> It's fine to set values. All I'm saying is that at least I would prefer >> if it was also clear what exact effect the setting of a value has, >> especially when that does not really match the language we use in the >> project. > > Yes I agree, I think Alejandro’s reply to this configurable reflects my > thoughts about it. > > So if we all agree that we should set this parameter, do we all agree that it > should be the > value above? > > Do you have other concerns regarding this or the other parameters in this > thread?
I did raise what was occurring to me. This doesn't mean that down the road yet something else might not pop up. Jan
