fergald added a comment. "why .mjs is so common that it justifies a clang-format change?"
I don't have data but Module JS is the future, it's supported by all major browsers for some time and also Node.js, it solves the problem of everything being lumped into one namespace. Why does it need a different suffix? It adds the "export" and "import" keywords and so it incompatible with common JS. Forcing everyone to keep using js for both is not helpful (clang-format is not forcing of course but applying clang-format with --assume-filename is pretty awkward). Node specifies .mjs as the suffix https://medium.com/@nodejs/announcing-a-new-experimental-modules-1be8d2d6c2ff https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html So the use of the .mjs suffix is going to grow in volume as people modernize their project. It would be great for clang-format to be enabling that migration. Repository: rC Clang CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66584/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66584 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
