rmarker wrote: > See > https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options. > IMO, when it's difficult to name the new options, it will be hard for people > to understand what they do. @mydeveloperday WDYT?
I'll have to see if we can get our style guide public. Argh, that will be fun company politics ;) Trying to first get the style guide to align with clang-format went down in flames. I think that switching to only including the option for indenting the top level lambdas ((https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143249#discussion_r2139472981)) does go a long way to making it a lot more straightforward and clearer to remove any confusion. In any case, I started work on upgrading to a struct (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143663). I think keeping support for the previous formatting, with at least a bool for lambda brace indentation is worth it. Regardless of any small additional nuance that is also possible to include in the option. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143249 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
