MyDeveloperDay added a comment.
In D69764#2050226 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2050226>, @steveire wrote: > I like the approach of using clang-format to implement this. It's much faster > than a `clang-tidy` approach. > > The broader C++ community has already chosen `East`/`West` and it has > momentum. If you choose `Left`/`Right` now, you will get pressure to add > `East`/`West` in the future, which means we'll have the synonyms we want to > avoid. > > The broader C++ community already has understanding of `East`/`West`. Trying > to change that now should be out of scope for this patch. This patch should > use `East`/`West`. > > I ran this on a large codebase and discovered some problems with this patch. > Given this `.clang-format` file: Thank you for this feedback @steveire, to be honest I agree, I didn't want to waste time arguing about the naming for now so simply gave in. Supporting multiple words from the outset also felt wrong, maybe we can spin around later towards the end of the review if there is more of a concencus on naming being the other way. Thank you also for the failure scenarios I will add them as tests as I try to improve this further. I think there was a suggestion that somehow this should cover all forms of identifier ordering but I actually think that is going to be incredibly complex especially if that configuration was completely dynamic and supported custom types and macros For now let me pursue fixes for the cases you have identified. 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
