djasper added a comment.
No, I don't think so. Because you need a "double-indent" within classes.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
LokiAstari added a comment.
> That should already be doable with a negative offset today, right?
Yes. So I don't need to add any changes. right?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.l
klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505#503472, @LokiAstari wrote:
> I don't have a problem changing it so the default behaviour is:
>
> class C {
> int v1;
> private:
> int v2;
> };
>
>
> But I would like to retain the functionality that if there is no e
LokiAstari added a comment.
I don't have a problem changing it so the default behaviour is:
class C {
int v1;
private:
int v2;
};
But I would like to retain the functionality that if there is no explicit
public/private/protected that it follows the original.
But if there is
djasper added a comment.
I generally agree. Note, however, that the mentioned style guide doesn't
actually specify this. All it says is "The public, protected, and private
keywords should be indented inside the class with the function declarations
indented as well."
So I guess,
class C {
klimek added a comment.
(full disclosure: I'm also generally opposed to this change, but if there are
really enough users using this it's probably a lost cause)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
klimek added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505#503278, @djasper wrote:
> So you'd be for #1 of the three choices from my previous comment?
Yes, because I think ultimately introducing scopes is different from simple
outdents/indents.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
djasper added a comment.
So you'd be for #1 of the three choices from my previous comment?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
klimek added a comment.
Perhaps call it AccessModifierIntroducesScope or something?
Side-track: I find it highly confusing that in
class C {
int v1;
private:
int v2;
}
v1 & v2 have different indent, although they are in the same scope.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
LokiAstari added a comment.
@djasper@klimek
Just want to bring this to the top of your queue again :-)
Any further thoughts on the processes?
Loki
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http
LokiAstari added a comment.
Hope you don't mind me chiming in:
> Roughly go ahead with what you are suggesting, although the option should not
> be called AccessModifierStandardIndent, as that carries no meaning and
> actually is far from the "standard" way. Reasonable names that spring to mind
djasper added a comment.
Sorry, my bad. I should have replied sooner. I believe we can move further with
this seems to be used widely enough (though it really doesn't make sense in my
personal opinion ;) ).
My main concern is how we are going to configure this in the long run. This is
mostly m
LokiAstari added a comment.
@djasper@klimek
Hi guys,
I am not sure how to move this PR forward.
I am not sure if you are uninterested or if this is two minor in comparison to
other issues.
If there is some other task I need to do to move this forward I more than happy
to do some leg wo
LokiAstari added a comment.
@djasper@klimek
Is that a sufficient example? Or do I need to do some more exhaustive search of
github for projects?
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22505
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http:/
LokiAstari added a comment.
Each new style option must ::
- be used in a project of significant size (have dozens of contributors)
- have a publicly accessible style guide
- have a person willing to contribute and maintain patches
Example:
https://github.com/openframeworks/openFrameworks
St
djasper added a comment.
Before we continue with the actual code review and brainstorming how we could
actually call this option, can you read through
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ClangFormatStyleOptions.html#adding-additional-style-options
and provide feedback about why this option qualifies?
16 matches
Mail list logo
