djasper added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/clang/Format/Format.h:154
+ /// \brief If a function call, initializer list, or template
+ /// argument list doesn't fit on a line, allow putting all
----------------
writing just "initializer list" is confusing, especially next to the
constructor initializer list below. Maybe "brace initializer list"?
Also, if this influences initializer lists and template argument lists, please
add tests for those.
If you change this file, please run docs/tools/dump_format_style.py to update
the docs.
(also, why is this comment so narrow?)
================
Comment at: include/clang/Format/Format.h:171
+
+ /// \brief If a constructor initializer list doesn't fit on a line, allow
+ /// putting all initializers onto the next line, if
----------------
I think this comment is a bit confusing. The "initializer list" does fit on one
line.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:757
+ Previous.is(TT_DictLiteral) ||
+ (!Style.AllowAllArgumentsOnNextLine && !State.Line->MustBeDeclaration))
State.Stack.back().BreakBeforeParameter = true;
----------------
nitpick: move this up one line so it's next to the case for
AllowAllParametersOfDeclarationOnNextLine.
================
Comment at: unittests/Format/FormatTest.cpp:3438
+ FormatStyle Style = getLLVMStyle();
+ Style.BreakConstructorInitializers = FormatStyle::BCIS_BeforeComma;
+ Style.ColumnLimit = 60;
----------------
Only testing this for BCIS_BeforeComma seems a bit bad to me. Is there a reason
for it?
Also, I think we should have a test where the constructor declaration itself
does not fit on one line, e.g. what's the behavior for:
Constructor(int param1,
...
int paramN) {
: aaaaaa(a), bbbbb(b) { .. }
https://reviews.llvm.org/D40988
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
