reuk added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2009
+ // classes case
+ if (Style.AccessModifierIndentation && Line->Level % 2 == 0)
+ --Line->Level;
----------------
klimek wrote:
> What if the class starts at level 1? (for example, inside a function or due
> to namespace indentation)
>
> namespace A {
> class B {
> public:
> ..
> };
> }
Probably worth adding a test or two that format nested classes, classes inside
namespaces, classes defined inside functions etc.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:2253
parseBlock(/*MustBeDeclaration=*/true, /*AddLevel=*/true,
- /*MunchSemi=*/false);
+ /*MunchSemi=*/false,
+ /*IndentedAccessModifiers=*/ContainsAccessModifier);
----------------
Yeah, this would look way nicer using a settings struct.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.h:89
void parseBlock(bool MustBeDeclaration, bool AddLevel = true,
- bool MunchSemi = true);
+ bool MunchSemi = true, bool IndentedAccessModifiers = false);
void parseChildBlock();
----------------
Adjacent `bool` parameters is a bit nasty. Maybe pass a struct of settings
instead?
https://isocpp.github.io/CppCoreGuidelines/CppCoreGuidelines#i4-make-interfaces-precisely-and-strongly-typed
Repository:
rC Clang
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60225/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D60225
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
