aaron.ballman 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`.
As a member of the C++ committee, I'm aware that any statements about what the
broader C++ community understands are not to be taken too seriously; none of us
know what ~5M people understand or don't.
I would like to reiterate my discomfort with using East/West as the identifiers
here. The purpose to this functionality is to decide whether to put qualifiers
before or after the base type -- use of east/west to describe relative
locations like these is not idiomatic in the same way as left/right or
before/after (e.g., I'm not east-handed and you don't put the cart to the west
of the horse). Qualifiers have been in C++ for ~40 years and the notion of
east/west terminology is a very recent evolution by comparison. Also,
clang-format is not a formatter for C++ alone and the east/west terminology is
likely even less-known to users of the other languages despite also having
qualifiers that need formatting (e.g., C and Obj). I think these are valid
technical concerns with the patch that we should not hand-wave away as matters
of preference.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/Format.cpp:2547
+ if (Style.isCpp() || Style.Language == FormatStyle::LK_ObjC) {
+ if (Style.ConstStyle != FormatStyle::CS_Leave)
----------------
This prevents us from using this in C code despite C having qualifiers that can
go to the left or right of the base type but still allows you to use if from
Objective-C. That seems incorrect.
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
