sammccall added a comment. In D69764#1740594 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#1740594>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> In D69764#1740582 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#1740582>, @sammccall wrote: > > > (Sorry for arriving at this late) > > > > At a strategic level, I have some concerns here: the fact that clang-format > > generally doesn't touch the token sequence isn't an accident. > > e.g. formatting `int x;;` will insert a newline rather than deleting the > > redundant semicolon. Like the one in this patch, that would be a useful > > feature, but it's a path the clang-format authors deliberately decided to > > close off. > > > I would agree that in the beginning that was true, but now with sorting of > includes/using we are making replacements to move things around, Yes. Making include-sorting a style option (and then turning that option on for google style) has been controversial and in hindsight a mistake IMO. I believe making it (only) a command-line flag is an option we should consider now (and should have considered then). There are important differences here: include insertion (and I think using too) is less likely to hit pseudoparser problems, but more likely that bad fixes change program behavior. > The fact we are using the same Replacement ideas that clang-tidy uses for > fix-its I feel this isn't a huge change of direction. clang-tidy and clang-format are very different tools with very different philosophies. clang-tidy is fairly successful and widely used, but clang-format much more so. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
