HazardyKnusperkeks added a comment. In D146101#4233535 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101#4233535>, @jp4a50 wrote:
> So at the risk of adding to the number of decisions we need to come to a > consensus on, I was about to update the KJ style guide to explicitly call out > the difference in indentation for designated initializers when I realized > that we (both KJ code authors and clang-format contributors) should consider > whether users should have the option to configure other similar types of > indentation following opening braces. > > I chatted to the owner of the KJ style guide and, whilst he did not have > extremely strong opinions one way or another, he and I agreed that it > probably makes more sense for such a config option to apply to other types of > braced init lists. > > Broadly speaking, these include aggregate initialization and list > initialization (possibly direct initialization with braces too). See the > initialization <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/initialization> > cppref article for links to all these. > > As such, I would propose to actually rename > `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` to `BracedInitializerIndentWidth` (but > open to suggestiosn on exact naming) and have it apply to all the above types > of initialization. > > What does everyone think? Would be okay for me. But then I want the documentation and tests show nested initialization (array of struct for example). ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1665-1669 + const auto DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth = + Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth < 0 + ? Style.ContinuationIndentWidth + : Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; + NewIndent = CurrentState.LastSpace + DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; ---------------- MyDeveloperDay wrote: > 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 > > > > > 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 @MyDeveloperDay said, ignore `PPIndentWidth`, that will be dealt with on a different occasion. Use the optional, it is the right thing (TM) to do. For the yaml stuff, I for one like to define everything (even it has the default value), thus I'd like the `-1` or something on output. **But** if that leads to messing around with the yaml code just use what it does. 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
