owenpan added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/include/clang/Format/Format.h:1220
+ /// \endcode
+ bool AfterCSharpProperty;
};
----------------
MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > MyDeveloperDay wrote:
> > > HazardyKnusperkeks wrote:
> > > > Please sort. :)
> > > Are we sure we want THIS to be alphabetic, as this changes the
> > > initializer order, if someone is using the format() library in downstream
> > > code this could subtly break them?
> > >
> > > ```
> > > Expanded.BraceWrapping = {/*AfterCaseLabel=*/false,
> > > /*AfterClass=*/false,
> > >
> > > /*AfterControlStatement=*/FormatStyle::BWACS_Never,
> > > /*AfterEnum=*/false,
> > > /*AfterFunction=*/false,
> > > /*AfterNamespace=*/false,
> > > /*AfterObjCDeclaration=*/false,
> > > /*AfterStruct=*/false,
> > > /*AfterUnion=*/false,
> > > /*AfterExternBlock=*/false,
> > > /*BeforeCatch=*/false,
> > > /*BeforeElse=*/false,
> > > /*BeforeLambdaBody=*/false,
> > > /*BeforeWhile=*/false,
> > > /*IndentBraces=*/false,
> > > /*SplitEmptyFunction=*/true,
> > > /*SplitEmptyRecord=*/true,
> > > /*SplitEmptyNamespace=*/true,
> > > /*AfterCSharpProperty=*/false};
> > > ```
> > I'd say yes, we are breaking this stuff always.
> >
> > Granted this one may compile without an error, but they should get a
> > warning of a missing initializer.
> >
> > You could add a constructor to initialize out of struct order.
> I'm ok with making the change, just wanted to double check that we are ok to
> break the ordering.
I kept them sorted in D52527 years ago. :)
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148467/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D148467
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
