curdeius added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:14921
+ verifyFormat("unsigned int *a;\n"
+ "int *b;\n"
"unsigned int Const *c;\n"
----------------
HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > I seem to remember in the past there was a comment from @djasper in the
> > past that he felt you shouldn't align the * like this
> >
> > I think it depends on your viewpoint as to whether the * goes with the type
> > or the variable, this could be a religious debate, I don't think you can
> > just assume everyone agrees with this, the fact you are changing unit tests
> > just leaves me with alarm bells going off...
> >
> > I'm not comfortable with you changing unit tests. This implies that you
> > think its a bug, but I think the fact the test exists (Beyonce rule), means
> > someone may have wanted to assert that behaviour.
> >
> > Should we have an option to control this?
> As far as I understand it `PAS_Right` says it should stick with the variable,
> and thus align this way, if we align declarations.
>
> I think this test was this way because of the `FIXME`.
I agree with @HazardyKnusperkeks. But I agree that it might be a contentious
subject.
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:15046-15048
" int const i = 1;\n"
- " int * j = 2;\n"
+ " int *j = 2;\n"
" int big = 10000;\n"
----------------
HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> But maybe than this should be aligned as that?
Hmm, that's a subjective choice here indeed.
We might either 1) choose one or another (I'm slightly in favor of aligning
variable names, as it's done currently), or 2) add a config option.
For 1), it would be wise to see large projects with a similar style and what
they do (and whethere there's some consensus).
Anyone aware of such projects?
================
Comment at: clang/unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:15046-15048
" int const i = 1;\n"
- " int * j = 2;\n"
+ " int *j = 2;\n"
" int big = 10000;\n"
----------------
curdeius wrote:
> HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > But maybe than this should be aligned as that?
> Hmm, that's a subjective choice here indeed.
> We might either 1) choose one or another (I'm slightly in favor of aligning
> variable names, as it's done currently), or 2) add a config option.
> For 1), it would be wise to see large projects with a similar style and what
> they do (and whethere there's some consensus).
> Anyone aware of such projects?
That makes me think. How would be this formatted:
```
int **************lotsOfpointers;
int i;
```
@gergap, could you add such a test or point me to an existing one that tests
the same thing, please?
That sort of test might fail if pointers/references weren't accounted for in
the length of the type name itself.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103245/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D103245
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
