ilya-biryukov added a comment. In D60605#1495268 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D60605#1495268>, @yvvan wrote:
> @ilya-biryukov > What do you think about D53072 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53072>? It can be > polished and combined with this change removing some code from here (which I > assume is a good thing). > The idea there is that clang-format knows that it's not allowed to remove > new lines and it always marks them with MustBreakBefore. > I'm not sure if anybody needs an executable but I think it's not a big deal > to have an extra reformat() function. > > It is also safe because it was the only way I found which does not break the > code style like, for instance, adding comment block to the end of the > previous line. I also think (both Sam and you seem to agree with this) that we'll definitely need changes to `clang-format` to support this use-case. Also sympathetic to the view that this change should probably live in `clang-format`, but having it in clangd first and moving to `clang-format` later also LG. @sammccall, what's your plan there? Experimenting in `clangd` and moving to `clang-format` later? Any reason to not start in `clang-format` in the first place? Will add a few comments regarding the need for a separate tool in D53072 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D53072> directly. Repository: rCTE Clang Tools Extra CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D60605/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D60605 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
