HazardyKnusperkeks 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.
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> 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
I also fully support that! (Although I would not say a bool is per se bad.)
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
