================
Comment at: lib/Format/UnwrappedLineParser.cpp:1042
@@ +1041,3 @@
+ bool NeedsUnwrappedLine = false;
+ if (FormatTok->Tok.is(tok::colon)) {
+ // We are in a function try block, what comes is an initializer list
----------------
Manuel Klimek wrote:
> Alexander Rojas wrote:
> > Manuel Klimek wrote:
> > > I'm wondering whether we just want to eat everything up to the next '{'.
> > > In general, we try to parse as little as possible in the structural
> > > parser.
> > >
> > > If we decide we really need to parse the structure here, I think we
> > > should pull out a parseInitializerList() method.
> > I've been thinking on how to parse the initializer list, and it might be
> > quite cumbersome. I've been thinking on leaving out of this patch the
> > ability of dealing with function-try blocks and leave it for latter (since
> > I do this as a hobby, there's really a limit on how much time I can spend
> > on this).
> I think we're misunderstanding each other here... What I mean is that we
> should parse *less* accurately. The thing to remember is that clang-format
> must work well on incorrect code. Thus, the structural parser tries hard to
> find only the structural elements that matter.
>
> Regarding the time limits you have: especially when you do this as a hobby,
> I'd say this is the perfect venue to try to get things "right". As nobody
> forces you to do it, there's also no deadline pressure, so you can take all
> the time you need... The worst that can happen is that somebody asks you
> whether they can take over and finish the patch if they need it more urgently.
I don't think you can just consume until the next brace, due to brace
initialization:
try : foo{}, bar{nullptr} {} catch (...) {}
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2555
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
