klimek added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478#920345, @Typz wrote:
> > Unless I'm missing something, I'd agree with Daniel; this is not a rule > > that's widely used, and I'd say reformatting a code base to the > > clang-formatted variant will not regress readability. > > Unfortunately coding rules are not just about readability, but also about > consistency at entreprise scale, thus as a general rule we should not change > the established rules in an organizatoin. > There is history in rules, we have code which already uses these rules, so > for consistency we must stick to the old rules (even if we would not > necessarily choose the same rules if we were to start from scratch). My guess is (but I might be wrong): if your code base is large enough and you search your internal code base for how well these rules are obeyed, I'd expect there to be a large number of violations (given that there is no automation to detect or fix those violations). In the end, getting actual consistency will require effort - either changing all violations, or changing everything to a consistent state with automation. https://reviews.llvm.org/D32478 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
