MyDeveloperDay added a comment.
I'm good with this but I'd be interesting in @owenpan and @HazardyKnusperkeks
opinion.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Format/TokenAnnotator.cpp:169-171
+ CurrentToken->getStartOfNonWhitespace() ==
+ CurrentToken->Next->getStartOfNonWhitespace().getLocWithOffset(
+ -1)) {
----------------
I was wondering this is actually saying....
I think its saying... 2 tokens are next to each other ">>" its not so much
formatting but ensuring the existing formatting is maintained, is that what you
understand?
Whilst this works it won't correct the case where the whitespace is wrong
i.e. I don't think
```
if (std::tuple_size_v < T >> 0) {
}
```
will be corrected to be
```
if (std::tuple_size_v<T> > 0) {
}
```
I'm a little wary of rules that use the existing whitespace, but I tend to
agree that it might be ok without the extra check.
It would be good to capture this as an annotator test (I like the verifyformat
one you put in) but the annotator tests we can assert that its actually a
templatecloser and binary operatror
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140843/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D140843
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
