Wawha added a comment.
In D44609#1893390 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D44609#1893390>,
@christophe-calmejane wrote:
> Nice to finally see this patch integrated!
>
> But, it looks like you didn't include all the test case I posted 1.5y ago in
> this post, that are still problematic and not formatting correctly with your
> patch:
> For example, this simple case do not format correctly:
>
> paramBeforeAndAfterLambda(8,[](int x){call();},5);
>
>
> The output is:
>
> paramBeforeAndAfterLambda(
> 8,
> [](int x)
> {
> call();
> },
> 5);
>
>
>
> although I would expect to see
>
> paramBeforeAndAfterLambda(8,
> [](int x)
> {
> call();
> },
> 5);
>
>
>
> See my proposed fix in the discussion, but note that I don't think it's clean
> enough to be accepted :)
Thank for the feedback.
Looking back at your comment and patch, I integrate most of your proposal in
order to fix the problem with "noexcept" .
I even have a comment of MyDevelopperDay because I reuse the keyword "auto" for
nextTok variable like it was in your proposal :)
For the bug your are reporting with the line wrap for first parameter, looking
at the tests I wrote, I see two tests which have should cover that case:
verifyFormat("FctWithMultipleParams_SLS_Empty(A, B,\n"
" []()\n"
" {\n"
" return 17;\n"
" });", LLVMWithBeforeLambdaBody);
verifyFormat("TwoNestedLambdas_SLS_Empty(A,\n"
" []()\n"
" {\n"
" return Call([]() {});\n"
" });", LLVMWithBeforeLambdaBody);
So perhaps there is a mistake, depending of the options or if there is an extra
parameter after the lambda.
I do not have a PC in the next 10 Days to check that but I Will try have a look
later.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44609/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44609
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
