benhamilton marked an inline comment as done.
benhamilton added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/Format/ContinuationIndenter.cpp:904
+ : State.Stack.back().Indent);
if (NextNonComment->LongestObjCSelectorName == 0)
+ return MinIndent;
----------------
djasper wrote:
> benhamilton wrote:
> > djasper wrote:
> > > Does this if actually change the behavior in any way? With
> > > LongestObjCSelectorName being 0, isn't that:
> > >
> > > return MinIndent +
> > > std::max(0, ColumnWidth) - ColumnWidth;
> > >
> > > (and with ColumnWidth being >= 0, this should be just MinIndent)
> > The `- ColumnWidth` part is only for the case where
> > `LongestObjCSelectorName` is *not* 0. If it's 0, we return `MinIndent`
> > which ensures we obey `Style.IndentWrappedFunctionNames`.
> >
> > The problem with the code before this diff is when
> > `LongestObjCSelectorName` was 0, we ignored
> > `Style.IndentWrappedFunctionNames` and always returned
> > `State.Stack.back().Indent` regardless of that setting.
> >
> > After this diff, when `LongestObjCSelectorName` is 0 (i.e., this is either
> > the first part of the selector or a selector which is not colon-aligned due
> > to block formatting), we change the behavior to indent to at least
> > `State.FirstIndent + Style.ContinuationIndentWidth`, like all other
> > indentation logic in this file.
> >
> > I've added some comments explaining what's going on, since this code is
> > quite complex.
> I am not saying your change is wrong. And I might be getting out of practice
> with coding. My question is, what changes if you remove lines 906 and 907
> (the "if (...) return MinIndent")?
Oh, I see what you're saying now! Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, we can remove these lines now. Done.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44994
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
