MyDeveloperDay added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1665-1669 + const auto DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth = + Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth < 0 + ? Style.ContinuationIndentWidth + : Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; + NewIndent = CurrentState.LastSpace + DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; ---------------- rymiel wrote: > owenpan wrote: > > jp4a50 wrote: > > > HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > > jp4a50 wrote: > > > > > > HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > > > > > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > > > > > jp4a50 wrote: > > > > > > > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > owenpan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Using -1 to mean `ContinuationIndentWidth` is unnecessary > > > > > > > > > > > and somewhat confusing IMO. > > > > > > > > > > Please disregard my comment above. > > > > > > > > > Just to make sure we are on the same page, does this mean > > > > > > > > > that you are happy with the approach of using `-1` as a > > > > > > > > > default value to indicate that `ContinuationIndentWidth` > > > > > > > > > should be used? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did initially consider using `std::optional<unsigned>` and > > > > > > > > > using empty optional to indicate that > > > > > > > > > `ContinuationIndentWidth` should be used but I saw that > > > > > > > > > `PPIndentWidth` was using `-1` to default to using > > > > > > > > > `IndentWidth` so I followed that precedent. > > > > > > > > Yep! I would prefer the `optional`, but as you pointed out, we > > > > > > > > already got `PPIndentWidth`using `-1`. > > > > > > > From the C++ side I totally agree. One could use `value_or()`, > > > > > > > which would make the code much more readable. > > > > > > > And just because `PPIndentWidth` is using -1 is no reason to > > > > > > > repeat that, we could just as easily change `PPIndentWidht` to an > > > > > > > optional. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But how would it look in yaml? > > > > > > In YAML we wouldn't need to support empty optional being > > > > > > *explicitly* specified - it would just be the default. > > > > > > > > > > > > So specifying `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth: 4` would set the > > > > > > `std::optional<unsigned>` to `4` but if > > > > > > `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` was omitted from the YAML then > > > > > > the optional would simply not be set during parsing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if we were to change `PPIndentWidth` to work that way > > > > > > too, it would technically be a breaking change because users may > > > > > > have *explicitly* specified `-1` in their YAML. > > > > > > And just because `PPIndentWidth` is using -1 is no reason to repeat > > > > > > that, we could just as easily change `PPIndentWidht` to an optional. > > > > > > > > > > We would have to deal with backward compatibility to avoid > > > > > regressions though. > > > > > In YAML we wouldn't need to support empty optional being *explicitly* > > > > > specified - it would just be the default. > > > > > > > > > > So specifying `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth: 4` would set the > > > > > `std::optional<unsigned>` to `4` but if > > > > > `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` was omitted from the YAML then the > > > > > optional would simply not be set during parsing. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if we were to change `PPIndentWidth` to work that way too, > > > > > it would technically be a breaking change because users may have > > > > > *explicitly* specified `-1` in their YAML. > > > > > > > > You need an explicit entry, because you need to be able to write the > > > > empty optional on `--dump-config`. > > > > > In YAML we wouldn't need to support empty optional being *explicitly* > > > > > specified - it would just be the default. > > > > > > > > > > So specifying `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth: 4` would set the > > > > > `std::optional<unsigned>` to `4` but if > > > > > `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` was omitted from the YAML then the > > > > > optional would simply not be set during parsing. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, if we were to change `PPIndentWidth` to work that way too, > > > > > it would technically be a breaking change because users may have > > > > > *explicitly* specified `-1` in their YAML. > > > > > > > > You need an explicit entry, because you need to be able to write the > > > > empty optional on `--dump-config`. > > > > > > It looks like the YAML IO logic just does the right thing (TM) with > > > `std::optional`s. When calling `IO.mapOptional()` on output, it simply > > > doesn't write the key out if the value is an empty optional. So I don't > > > think this is an issue. > > > > > > As @owenpan says, though, there is still the issue of backward > > > compatibility with `PPIndentWidth`. > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about which way to go so I'll leave it to you two > > > to decide! > > > As @owenpan says, though, there is still the issue of backward > > > compatibility with `PPIndentWidth`. > > > > > > I don't feel strongly about which way to go so I'll leave it to you two > > > to decide! > > > > @MyDeveloperDay @rymiel can you weigh in? > > > can you weigh in? > > Well, as someone with experience with YAML, but with no experience with > LLVM's YAML stuff, I'd suggest making it `null` (explicitly), but a) i don't > know if that's supported and b) i'm not sure if it's semantically any clearer > than just `-1` I'd do the right think with `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` which I guess is to use the `std::optional` that @owenpan suggests and don't worry about `PPIndentWidth` for now, if anything if it works I'd prefer to understand if we can turn `PPIndentWidth` into a `std::optional` later (in a seperate review) and just catch the -1 case so at least the code is nicer, but that is a different task Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
