jp4a50 added a comment. In D146101#4261293 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146101#4261293>, @MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> If all comments and concerns are done, then I'm inclined to accept, but I'd > like @owenpan and @HazardyKnusperkeks to give their opinion before we land > this. Sure. Thanks! ================ Comment at: clang/lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:1665-1669 + const auto DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth = + Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth < 0 + ? Style.ContinuationIndentWidth + : Style.DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; + NewIndent = CurrentState.LastSpace + DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth; ---------------- owenpan wrote: > HazardyKnusperkeks wrote: > > 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. > > 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 > > +1. > > > > 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. @HazardyKnusperkeks @owenpan, before potentially committing this change, I just wanted to draw your attention again to this comment to confirm that you are happy with the current implementation which doesn't explicitly print `null` or similar for a default value of `DesignatedInitializerIndentWidth` when dumping the config. I'm assuming that's OK since @HazardyKnusperkeks suggested that we don't bother if it involves messing around with the yaml code (which it would). 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
