krasimir added a comment.
I think these examples are too ambiguous for clang-format to try and format
correctly.
Sadly for C++, correctly distinguishing between `>>`, the binary operator, and
`>>`, the sequence of two closing template brackets, requires semantic
analysis, I believe.
Such heuristics are very brittle, e.g. this patch fixes `if (i < x >> 1)` but
regresses this:
% cat ~/test.cc
bool f() {
if (w<u<v<x>>, 1>::t) return true;
}
% bin/clang-format ~/test.cc
bool f() {
if (w < u < v < x >>, 1 > ::t)
return true;
}
%
We can of course enumerate a fixed set of patterns where we apply such fixes
fixes, but I'm not sure how much is that worth.
I think clang-format's current approach to choose to interpret as a template,
even if silly at times, is reasonable.
A way to deal with `if (i < x >> 1)` is to give clang-format a hint e.g. `if (i
< (x >> 1))`. You can ~always surround an expression with braces, but if
clang-format guesses incorrectly two template closers as a binary operator, I
can't think of a good way to force it to stop.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79293/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D79293
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
