MyDeveloperDay added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:1849
+ } while (FormatTok->is(tok::comment));
+ }
if (!(FormatTok->isOneOf(tok::kw_catch, Keywords.kw___except,
----------------
Bigcheese wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > can you use `FormatTok->getNextNonComment()`?
> No, `Next` has not been setup at this point, so it will always return
> `nullptr`.
There is something about what we are doing here which doesn't feel correct...If
you look in FormatTokenLexer why are we not doing something similar here for
@try and @catch as we are doing for @"ABC" (see below tryMergeNSStringLiteral)
The FormatTokenLexer can merge together a number of tokens into a new single
token and combined text, after that nothing can split that token, meaning the
`@` and `try` will never become separated and will simply be treated as a "@try"
This can be useful because you can set the new setKind() to be "tok::try" after
which `@try` will behave just like a normal `try` for all rules without the
constant need to keep checking if the previous token is an `@`
```
bool FormatTokenLexer::tryMergeNSStringLiteral() {
if (Tokens.size() < 2)
return false;
auto &At = *(Tokens.end() - 2);
auto &String = *(Tokens.end() - 1);
if (!At->is(tok::at) || !String->is(tok::string_literal))
return false;
At->Tok.setKind(tok::string_literal);
At->TokenText = StringRef(At->TokenText.begin(),
String->TokenText.end() - At->TokenText.begin());
At->ColumnWidth += String->ColumnWidth;
At->Type = TT_ObjCStringLiteral;
Tokens.erase(Tokens.end() - 1);
return true;
}
```
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTestObjC.cpp:200
+ "} @catch (NSException *e) {\n"
+ "}\n");
verifyFormat("DEBUG({\n"
----------------
Bigcheese wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > Nit: Could you not keep the original test? just add a new testcase? I get
> > uncomfortable about changing tests no matter how trivial
> Is there something special about clang-format that causes this concern? I'm
> all for testing separate things separately, but the additions to this test
> are testing the same leaf lines of code.
as you are scanning back, I'd like to know we haven't broken the previous tests
behaviour.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71239/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D71239
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
