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