MyDeveloperDay added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst:2286
+**IncludeSortAlphabetically** (``bool``)
+ Specify if sorting should be done in an alphabetical and
+ case sensitive fashion.
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> kentsommer wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > Are you sure `IncludeSortAlphabetically` expresses what you mean? Once
> > > these things get released they cannot be changed easily.
> > >
> > > If you were not sure of a new option, in my view we should slow down and
> > > make sure we have the correct design, for example you could have used a
> > > enum and it might have given you more possibility for greater flexibility
> > >
> > > ```
> > > enum IncludeSort
> > > {
> > > CaseInsensitive
> > > CaseSensitive
> > > }
> > > ```
> > >
> > > Please give people time to re-review your changes before we commit,
> > > especially if they've taken the time to look at your review in the first
> > > place. Just saying.
> > >
> > Hi, @MyDeveloperDay I definitely agree. It was not my intention to rush
> > through the review. I was simply trying to follow the process outlined in
> > https://llvm.org/docs/Contributing.html#how-to-submit-a-patch which
> > mentions giving sufficient information to allow for a commit on your behalf
> > when you don't have access after an LGTM (which is all that I did). As you
> > can see from the lack of additional comments from my end, I was happy to
> > let this sit and be reviewed.
> >
> > Per the discussion about the option itself, I do believe
> > `IncludeSortAlphabetically` currently expresses what I mean as the behavior
> > with this off is indeed not an alphabetical sort as case takes precedence
> > over the alphabetical ordering. However, looking at the enum and realizing
> > that others probably will have additional styles they prefer (maybe they
> > want alphabetical but lower case first, etc.) I do believe it might have
> > been a better way to go as it leaves more flexibility and room for
> > additional ordering styles. Given that this just landed, I would be happy
> > to open a patch to turn this into an `enum` as I do see benefits to doing
> > so. What do you think?
> Hmmm, and how about using the existing option `SortIncludes` and change its
> type from `bool` to some `enum`?
> We could then, for backward-compatibility, map `false` to (tentative) `Never`
> and `true` to `ASCII`/`CaseInsensitive`, and add `CaseSensitive`.
>
> This will have the advantage of not adding additional style options.
> ... and it will prove once again that using `bool`s for style options is not
> a good idea.
I think that is an excellent idea @curdeius
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95017/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95017
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
