HazardyKnusperkeks added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst:3649
``SBPO_ControlStatementsExceptForEachMacros`` remains an alias for
backward compatibility.
----------------
crayroud wrote:
> MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > Now I look back here, why where these Macro considered the same as for
> > loops? why would we want
> >
> > ```
> > for (....)
> > Q_FOREACH(...)
> > ```
> >
> > So this really does need a struct or we'll be eventually be adding
> >
> > `SBPO_ControlStatementsAndFunctionDefinitionsExceptControlMacrosButNotIfAndDefinatelyWhilesAndSometimesSwitchButOnlyOnTheSecondThursdayOfTheMonth`
> >
> > ```
> > SpaceBeforeParen:
> > AfterFunctionDefinitionName: false
> > AfterFunctionDeclarationName: true
> > AfterSwitch: true
> > AfterForeachMacros: false
> > .... (there are likely others)
> > ```
> >
> > `
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Indeed replacing the enum with a struct as suggested is better to support the
> different possible combinations, compare to the current version of
> SpaceBeforeParens that results in very long names.
>
> To support existing configuration files, I propose to keep the enum and to
> add a struct to handle the custom use cases and to cleanup the code. What do
> you think ?
>
> ```
> SpaceBeforeParens: Custom
> SpaceBeforeParensCustom:
> AfterFunctionDefinitionName: false
> AfterFunctionDeclarationName: true
> AfterSwitch: true
> AfterForeachMacros: false
> …
> ```
I haven't looked too deep into the parsing, but if we could try to parse it as
a struct and if that fails as enum for compatibility I would be in favor of
that. But a `custom` is also acceptable.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D110833/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D110833
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
