rajatbajpai added a comment. In D116283#3211590 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D116283#3211590>, @HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> Does it affect calling code? `a.operator++(5);` Should it? But please add > tests for that. Yes, it does affect the calling code as well. However, I am not sure if we should separate the two. Sure, I'll add a test case for it. ================ Comment at: clang/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.rst:3755 + * ``bool AfterOperatorOverloading`` If ``true``, put a space between operator overloading and opening parentheses. + ---------------- MyDeveloperDay wrote: > curdeius wrote: > > I'm not fond of the current name, exactly the "Overloading" part (but have > > no better suggestion right now). It seems a bit misleading to me. > > > > Maybe AfterOverloadedOperator(Name)??? At least it would match the token > > kind name. > +1 here, AfterOperator? @MyDeveloperDay Initially, I thought about using //AfterOperator// but it also seems a bit misleading. However, @curdeius suggestion seems reasonable given it matches with the token kind. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D116283/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D116283 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
