I didn't realize there were tests for parsing options. Added and attached.
If you can submit the change that would be great. Chris On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Christopher Olsen <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the patch: >> >> Added the flag SpacesInAngles - A<int> vs A< int > >> Note that LanguageStandard=Cpp03 overrides SpacesInAngles=false in the >> case of '>>' as in A<A<int> > >> >> While I tend to agree with you on spacing in template arguments I have >> 5+ million lines of code developed over 12 years in strict "pad >> everything" style to contend with. Honestly, I'm hoping clang-format >> will eventually allow us to re-evaluate certain style choices if it >> gets adopted on our project. > > > As I said, I can perfectly understand the necessity for SpacesInAngles (both > because there are large codebase where consistency matters and that it is a > strong matter of what one is used to). So this option is totally reasonable. > Sorry if I was unclear. > > The patch looks fine except that there doesn't seem to be a test for the > parsing of the configuration option. That should also be done in > unittests/Format/FormatTests.cpp along with the tests for parsing all the > other options. Do you have commit access or should I submit this patch for > you? > > Cheers, > Daniel > >> Chris >> >> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The patch itself looks fine. However, I am also slightly skeptical that >> > it >> > is a good general direction. >> > >> > Specifically: >> > - SpaceInEmptyAngles: Quite frankly, it doesn't matter enough. Nobody >> > really >> > cares (or should care about this). I'd make a decision and get on with >> > life. >> > If you need that space for your codebase, make it dependent on >> > SpacesInAngles. >> > - SpaceAfterTemplateKeyword: Same as above, it doesn't matter enough. We >> > actually had a discussion about this very early into the clang-format >> > development. People don't agree, but it really does not matter (no >> > version >> > is more or less readable, ..). We then actually went ahead (IIRC) to >> > change >> > all instances in the C++11 standard to do exactly what clang-format does >> > now. I'd rather have clang-format force people into a consistent >> > behavior >> > for such non-issues than add additional technical complexity to it. >> > - SpacesInAngles: I would personally be appalled by having to work in a >> > codebase that uses this. Constructs like "template < class T..." simply >> > look >> > too much like comparisons to me. However, I can see that, if you are >> > used to >> > it, switching might be hard. The overlapping of the language standard is >> > unfortunate, but I don't really see what we can do here. >> > >> > So, I am more or less fine with introducing SpacesInAngles (goes well >> > with >> > SpacesInParentheses), but I'd rather not introduce the other two (I know >> > that we have SpaceInEmptyParentheses - I also don't like that one, but >> > "()" >> > is way more common than "<>", so it matters a bit more). >> > >> > I also agree that, at the very least, we need some grouping of the >> > options >> > soon. I have not found a way to specify style options more intuitively. >> > And >> > to some extend, I think people having to carefully look through the >> > options >> > or accept a default is reasonable. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Christopher Olsen >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I am evaluating clang-format and need control over spacing in template >> >>> argument lists to conform to our coding standards. >> >>> >> >>> I've attached a patch that adds new flags to control this spacing. >> >>> Unittests are also included. >> >>> >> >>> - SpacesInAngles - A<int> vs A< int > >> >>> - SpaceInEmptyAngles - template <> vs template < > >> >>> - SpaceAfterTemplateKeyword - template<typename T> vs template >> >>> <typename >> >>> T> >> >>> >> >>> Note that LanguageStandard=Cpp03 overrides SpacesInAngles=false in the >> >>> case of '>>' as in A<A<int> > >> >>> >> >>> Please let me know if there is anything I need to fix for submission. >> >> >> >> >> >> I foresee (and have already run into multiple real use cases) where the >> >> spacing before, after, in between, etc. of many different kinds of >> >> tokens >> >> needs to be tweaked. For example: >> >> >> >> * multiplicative operators don't have spaces, but additive operators do >> >> `a >> >> + b*c` >> >> * spaces before parenthesized lists in function calls `foo (bar)` >> >> * spaces inside the parentheses of an `if`: `if ( cond ) {` >> >> * "function-like" return: `return(3)` >> >> >> >> I think we should try (though it may not be realistic) to integrate >> >> this >> >> functionality in a way that covers the different use cases and makes >> >> them >> >> interact in a consistent and understandable way; otherwise we will just >> >> end >> >> up growing a forest of not-easy-to-discover options that don't have >> >> very >> >> good coverage of the configuration space for the next project. For >> >> example, >> >> adapting clang-format to the OP's project coding standards requires >> >> adding 3 >> >> new options; is there a realistic upper bound on the number of such >> >> options >> >> that we will need in order for clang-format to support, say, 1000 >> >> different >> >> projects from 50 different companies/open-source communities? >> >> >> >> One possibility that I can imagine (although I don't know how feasible >> >> it >> >> is) is to ship another tool (or more likely keep it under an option to >> >> clang-format) which does a "one time" analysis to determine a set of >> >> parameters that will conform with a given sample source file (or files) >> >> and >> >> emits a configuration file. This analysis could work with a larger (but >> >> very >> >> consistent and well-defined) "plumbing" configuration space that >> >> essentially >> >> parameterizes the "guts" of clang-format (such as >> >> `spaceRequiredBefore`, >> >> `spaceRequiredBetween`, `splitPenalty`, etc.) in a data-driven way. >> >> >> >> On the other hand, I think it has been put out there before is that one >> >> of >> >> the benefits of clang-format is to help "standardize" to some extent on >> >> a >> >> common subset of style options, and so providing too-fine-grained >> >> support >> >> for "tweaking" the output might be undesirable from such a perspective. >> >> On >> >> the other hand, if clang-format wants to "dominate the world", it can't >> >> impose arbitrary changes on a project's coding style. A poignant >> >> question is >> >> "is it a goal for clang-format be able to conform with >> >> more-or-less-arbitrary styles without requiring requiring the users to >> >> get >> >> involved with clang-format development?", but I can't speak as to the >> >> answer. >> >> >> >> Daniel, what do you think? >> >> >> >> -- Sean Silva >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> Chris >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> cfe-commits mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >>> >> >> >> > > >
clang-format_spaces_in_angles.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
