Typz added a comment.

In https://reviews.llvm.org/D42787#1127790, @djasper wrote:

> The normal rule for formatting options apply. If you can dig up a public 
> style guide and a project of reasonable size where it is used, we can add an 
> option.

I don't want to be rude, but it seems to me that in this context this response 
is just a polite way of saying "no" : as discussed already on this patch, this 
is indeed a corner case, and probably not documented anywere, and as far as I 
understand, the current behavior is not referenced in llvm or google coding 
rule either. This is simply the styling that the maintainers find the most 

Hence my question: I know the "rules", but I want to know if you would be open 
to introducing options for tweaking this, in case people do not agree this is 
the most appropriate. Typically, for such corner cases I could imagine a nested 
option, similar to custom brace wrapping, so that the "basic" namespace option 
is not poluted, but further customization can be defined in a nested "advanced" 

  rC Clang


cfe-commits mailing list

Reply via email to