On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:07 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2017-08-29 18:32 -0700, Eric Rahm wrote: > > Do we explicitly state a preferred alignment of arguments in multi-line > > function declarations (primarily in the context of C++) [1]? This > question > > has come up in regards to using clang-format for cleaning up code [2] and > > it would be helpful to be able to reference a concrete example in the > style > > guide. > > > > Given this example: > > > > int > > Foo(const nsACstring& aStr, > > mozilla::UniquePtr<const char*>&& aBuffer, > > nsISupports* aOptionalThing = nullptr); > > > > Should the reformatted style: > > > > a) *stay the same* > > b) align the argument names like so: > > > > int > > Foo(const nsACstring& aStr, > > mozilla::UniquePtr<const char*>&& aBuffer, > > nsISupports* aOptionalThing = nullptr); > > > > c) some other option > > I don't know if we've had any official statements, but I tend to > reformat code *away* from option (b) towards your original example > if I'm modifying it and need to add a parameter than would throw > things out of alignment. > > I think I do this because (b) has the disadvantage that more code > changes require touching additional lines, which is both changes > blame and is extra work (although it's not extra work if we're using > clang-format tree-wide). Option (b) is also more likely to lead to > overly long lines that require wrapping. I agree with dbaron. Vertical alignment just creates more work and code churn. Keep it simple and don't require extra code to be changed just because you rename or add/remove arguments. We should be encouraging code to be refactored when justified. Extra, avoidable code churn via vertical alignment therefore discourages cleanups and is counter-productive to long-term maintainability. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
