owenpan added a comment.

In D60374#1457638 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60374#1457638>, @klimek wrote:
> The previous behavior looks intentional, and much more regular. I'd be 
> curious why you think the proposed behavior is more readable.


I see the bug in the inconsistency for the code below:

  int Foo::getter(
      //
  ) const {
    return foo;
  }
  
  void Foo::setter(
      //
  ) {
    foo = 1;
  }

The closing parenthesis is indented in `getter` but not `setter`.


Repository:
  rC Clang

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D60374/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D60374



_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to