On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Optionally derive formatting information from the input file. > > A more sophisticated extension of this might be the solution to the > "StringSwitch" issue. > > However, going down that road has the disadvantage that it means that > the output depends on the formatting of the input, which loses (to > some extent) the "canonicality" property of the formatting. (Has this > been discussed elsewhere?). > Yes, this comes up every time one argues with C++ devs :) There are multiple issues at play here: - this change only detects configuration options, it doesn't actually change the behavior depending on how code was formatted before in a non-canonical way - we already configure code according to the previous whitespaces - obviously macros need this, but we also derive where comments belong to by looking at whitespace around the comment - applying "don't touch" to StringSwitch is a pretty strong example for the other end of the spectrum, and I'd strongly vote against doing this for as long as possible ;) Cheers, /Manuel > > -- Sean Silva > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
