lars.knoll at qt.io
Tue Jul 3 10:26:21 CEST 2018
On 2 Jul 2018, at 16:52, Tor Arne Vestbø <Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io<mailto:Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io>> wrote:
On 2 Jul 2018, at 16:49, Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io<mailto:lars.knoll at qt.io>> wrote:
On 2 Jul 2018, at 13:35, Tor Arne Vestbø <Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io<mailto:Tor.arne.Vestbo at qt.io>> wrote:
On 2 Jul 2018, at 12:56, Svenn-Arne Dragly <svenn-arne.dragly at qt.io<mailto:svenn-arne.dragly at qt.io>> wrote:
There are also many nice options set in the clang-format config found in Qt Creator's sources which I think are interesting. For instance, "BinPackParameters: false" and "BinPackArguments: false" makes sure you to either put all arguments on one line or give if arguments will have one line each. This might be in the controversial category, but it is nice to enable while developing. It makes clang-format reflow the code consistently just by moving a single argument to a new line and running clang-format afterwards.
I oppose mandating this style, through clang-format or otherwise.
Having a common style that we start following is worth something. And yes, everybody will always find some details he won't like. So we won't get anywhere if everybody wants it exactly his way.
Why not ease into this with the non-controversial style-rules first?
clang-format will produce one way how the output is formatted. It will reformat your sources a certain way with less definitions in the file as well. So it's most likely better to have more rules defined as it'll give something closer to our implicitly used coding style.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Development