On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes. A style option makes perfect sense. I am just (moderately) against > implementing a filename-based detection in ClangFormat.cpp. > I see. Yea, might not be super useful, true... > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I think JS and C++ will almost always be in different sub-directories. >>> So different .clang-format files are the way to go.. >>> >> >> That would be an argument for putting it in as a style option, right? >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Manuel Klimek <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Daniel Jasper <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> After thinking some more, I guess my main reason is that I strongly >>>>> doubt >>>>> that we'll ever have a JavaScript style and a C++ style that are >>>>> identical >>>>> in all aspects other than the LanguageStandard.. So, the detection >>>>> based on >>>>> the file extension inside clang-format will likely be redundant.. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think this would be useful for mixed open source projects (or >>>> companies without an existing style guide). >>>> One interesting point is that our configuration is very "repo" >>>> centric, and there are enough mixed repos out there - how would we want to >>>> support this without major setup effort required for every engineer >>>> contributing to a project... >>>> >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
