In ContinuationIndenter::mustBreak().. clang-format does not use that code at all if everything fits on one line..
However, I am not really saying that that is a better solution.. At any rate, it is low priority so let's discuss this on Monday.. On Nov 21, 2013 4:11 PM, "Manuel Klimek" <[email protected]> wrote: > So, in general, I think the problem is that we still need to break in the > "fits into one line" case in some styles: > void f () { > f(); > } > Here if we have a style that requires the { to go on the next line, we'd > still generate at least 3 unwrapped lines; thus, even if "void f() {" fits > into one line, we need to put the break before the { in somewhere, unless > all of "void f() { f(); }" fits into one line and we can join the lines... > > Where would you propose to do that? > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I don't feel strongly about this. However, putting then decision into >>> mustBreak would just work. You don't need any special casing for the >>> single-line case as that is handled by a different code path.. >>> >> >> I don't understand that yet - if mustBreak retruns true, we'd introduce a >> break; when we join lines, we'd need to remove that break again, and count >> the right number of spaces, right? >> >> >>> On Nov 21, 2013 2:22 AM, "Alexander Kornienko" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Having played with this a bit, I found a few problems with not putting >>>> the braces into separate lines in the UnwrappedLinesParser: >>>> * if we have braces on the same unwrapped line, we'll need to >>>> introduce a break when laying them out (using TokenAnnotator::mustBreak), >>>> and we'll have to undo this break when joining lines (IIUC, line joiner >>>> currently doesn't support this); >>>> * when MustBreakBefore is set, we also make TotalLength > >>>> ColumnLimit, and we'll need to undo this in line joiner, which will also >>>> add complexity. >>>> >>>> Overall, always having the braces on the same unwrapped line doesn't >>>> seem to be able to simplify the code =\ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Alexander Kornienko < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @@ -681,6 +681,7 @@ void UnwrappedLineParser::parseStructura >>>>>>>> Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Stroustrup >>>>>>>> || >>>>>>>> Style.BreakBeforeBraces == FormatStyle::BS_Allman) >>>>>>>> addUnwrappedLine(); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does it still make sense to report the "{" as its own unwrapped >>>>>>> line? Seems a bit convoluted to first report multiple lines and then >>>>>>> merge >>>>>>> them afterwards. I think this would make the merging code simpler. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It also seemed strange to me. Should we instead handle >>>>>> BreakBeforeBraces in TokenAnnotator? This will require adding TokenType >>>>>> values for braces starting namespaces, classes/structs and, probably, >>>>>> enums. I can play with this a bit, it you think it makes sense. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I might have already done this for enums. I don't think it is >>>>> essential to add token types for all of these as e.g. enums and namespaces >>>>> are really easy to detect. But adding token types might be the cleaner >>>>> solution. I think that this makes sense but I remember having some kind of >>>>> debate over this with Manuel, so he might have an opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
