hwright marked 2 inline comments as done.
hwright added inline comments.
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/abseil-duration-double-conversion.rst:20
+
+
+ // Original - Conversion to integer and back again
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> hwright wrote:
> > Eugene.Zelenko wrote:
> > > Unnecessary empty line.
> > This is consistent with other documentation in this directory, such as
> > `abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst`.
> In your example `abseil-faster-strsplit-delimiter.rst` , The double blank
> line in the html doesn't give much delineation between the before and after
> code and the next example.
>
> {F7867869}
>
> There probably isn't a convention per say (which is a shame), across the docs
> we do a mixture of different styles
>
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/readability-braces-around-statements.html
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/android-cloexec-accept.html
> https://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/checks/google-objc-function-naming.html
>
> But there is a desire by some of the regular clang-tidy reviewers to make the
> documentation consistent
>
> It may not be ideal but the "Before/After" style, that is used in
> `modernize-use-emplace`,
> `modernize-use-using`,`readability-braces-around-statements`,`readability-identifier-naming`
> and `readability-redundant-function-ptr-dereference` does help a little.
>
> I'm not saying looks better, but I've added a couple of examples of
> formatting the strsplit example for comparison, feel free to ignore.
>
> {F7867960}
>
> {F7868028}
>
>
I like those examples!
Would it be reasonable to update all of the `abseil-duration-*` documentation
in a separate pass, after this change is submitted?
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57353/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D57353
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
