HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D69764#2876916 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2876916>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
>> So yes, I'm in favour of landing this patch (though not exactly in the >> current form, I'd prefer more future-proof options for instance, not only >> handling const) > > I am in agreement, but I don't want to put more effort into improving the > current design of this patch to handle more use-cases and options UNTIL we > round out on the go/no go decision. > > From my perspective the use of violate is lower priority as its used like > less than 0.01% as often as const. but I definitely think that we can add > additional options on the lines of ReSharper to give even greater flexibility > > F17930223: image.png <https://reviews.llvm.org/F17930223> I would basically enumerate the qualifiers we can have and let the user decide the desired order. In D69764#2877614 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D69764#2877614>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote: > If we create a new tool, I recommend you, I and some of the other > clang-format regulars also be the CODE_OWNERS so we can innovate without > feeling stifled. On another note, I think you could already now run for that position of `clang-format`. :) 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
