MyDeveloperDay requested changes to this revision. MyDeveloperDay added a comment. This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Looking at this I'm wondering if this Isn't at least partially handled by the `BreakConstructorInitializersStyle` in combination with `ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine` style? I can't be exactly sure but I think BreakConstructorInitializersStyle didn't exist before 2017 D32479: clang-format: Introduce BreakConstructorInitializers option <https://reviews.llvm.org/D32479> when this original patch was submitted BreakConstructorInitializers: BeforeComma ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine: true SomeClass::Constructor() : aaaaaa(aaaaaaa), bbbbbb(bbbbbbb), cc(cc) {} SomeClass::Constructor() : aaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) , bbbbbb(bbbbbbb) , cc(cc) {} BreakConstructorInitializers: BeforeComma ConstructorInitializerAllOnOneLineOrOnePerLine: false SomeClass::Constructor() : aaaaaa(aaaaaaa) , bbbbbb(bbbbbbb) , cc(cc) {} SomeClass::Constructor() : aaaaaa(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) , bbbbbb(bbbbbbb) , cc(cc) {} At least the unit tests appear to be covered by using those styles? Nit: At a minimum, this patch would need to be rebased and be a full context diff, can anyone see a use case that can't be covered with what we have? Moving to "request changes" (really request to abandon if not necessary any longer) Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D14484/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D14484 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
