HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment.
In D119893#3325375 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D119893#3325375>, @curdeius wrote:
> +1 to Arthur's comments.
> Does it fix any of the recently created issues?
Yeah, I should have put that in the commit message, right? ;)
Maybe I would have discovered the bug myself, but this is from GitHub.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:3018-3019
do {
+ bool LambdaThisTimeAllowed = LambdaNextTimeAllowed;
+ LambdaNextTimeAllowed = false;
+
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> Nit: For this pattern, consider `bool LambdaThisTimeAllowed =
> std::exchange(LambdaNextTimeAllowed, false);`
I was under the impression that exchange was C++17. If I'd known that it's 14
and I can use it, I'd done that in the first place.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:3102
+ LambdaNextTimeAllowed = true;
+ LLVM_FALLTHROUGH;
+ case tok::numeric_constant:
----------------
Quuxplusone wrote:
> This seems like an overuse of fallthrough; how about simply
> ```
> LambdaNextTimeAllowed = true;
> nextToken();
> break;
> ```
> ?
Can do. I'm just thinking if there is ever a change to what to do, not just
`nextToken()`, I would have to change it only at 2 not 3 places. But probably
that will never happen.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119893/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D119893
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
