Well, tools are produced for use as Hildy Johnson notes... If folks want to use this as an after the fact emacs mode on code they are adding, I don't mind. But touching a file doesn't mean you should also "fix up" its formatting with such a tool. As long as THAT is part of our coding conventions, I guess I can't object.
Jim > On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > (peanut gallery comment from LLVm and Clang communities and a happy > clang-format user) > > One thing to keep in mind is that clang-format is just a tool. You can use > it, but you can also not use it when it doesn't serve your purpose. I still > will at times manually format code correctly precisely because there is an > art to laying it out so it looks clear. I just use clang-format to get me > close to this first (often surprisingly close). And you can always just > ignore it... > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David Majnemer <[email protected]> > wrote: > More importantly, there's somewhat of an art to laying out code so it looks > clear and is easy to read. These tools tend to make uglify such attempts, in > my experience. > > clang-format has been, by all accounts that I know of, a smashing success in > Clang and LLVM. It is regularly used by many of the contributors and is > often explicitly referenced when we see new code up for review that is not > compliant with the coding standards. > > You might ask Jim Grosbach from LLVM land or some of the Clang hackers you > know who are using clang-format regularly and successfully? They might be > able to share experiences, pros, cons, etc. _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
