================
@@ -927,14 +927,12 @@ BreakableLineCommentSection::BreakableLineCommentSection(
}
if (Lines[i].size() != IndentPrefix.size()) {
- PrefixSpaceChange[i] = FirstLineSpaceChange;
+ assert(Lines[i].size() > IndentPrefix.size());
- if (SpacesInPrefix + PrefixSpaceChange[i] < Minimum) {
- PrefixSpaceChange[i] +=
- Minimum - (SpacesInPrefix + PrefixSpaceChange[i]);
- }
+ PrefixSpaceChange[i] = SpacesInPrefix + FirstLineSpaceChange < Minimum
----------------
owenca wrote:
Like the examples of [conditional/ternary
operators](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/operator_other.html#Conditional_operator),
I never add redundant parentheses because they have the lowest precedence
relative to arithmetic/logical operators. This is analogous to `a + (b * c)` or
`(a / b) - c`.
The clang-format codebase has a mixture of both `expr1 ? expr2 : expr3` and
`(expr1) ? expr2 : expr3`, and IMO we should consistently use the former.
Although I can understand why some people prefer the latter when `expr1` and
`expr2` are on the same line, there's really nothing to gain when the questions
mark starts on a new line:
```
expr1
? expr2
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/148324
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
