conservative.
In particular, this fixes an unwanted corner case.
Before:
string s =
someFunction("aaaa"
"bbbb");
After:
string s = someFunction(
"aaaa"
"bbbb");
llvm-svn: 240129
It was a bit too aggressive.
With this patch, we keep on breaking here:
aaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaa,
"aaaaaaa"
"bbbbbbb");
But don't break in:
aaaaaaaaaaaaa(aaaaaaa, aaaaaaaa("aaaaaaa"
"bbbbbbb"));
llvm-svn: 240024
Before:
var func =
function() {
doSomething();
};
After:
var func =
function() {
doSomething();
};
This is a very narrow special case which fixes most of the discrepency
with what our users do. In the long run, we should try to come up with
a more generic fix for indenting these.
llvm-svn: 240014
In essence this is meant to consistently indent multiline strings by a
fixed amount of spaces from the start of the line. Don't do this in
cases where it wouldn't help anyway.
Before:
someFunction(aaaaa,
"aaaaa"
"bbbbb");
After:
someFunction(aaaaa, "aaaaa"
"bbbbb");
llvm-svn: 240004
Before:
template <typename T>
auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(T t) -> decltype(eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<T>(t.a)
.aaaaaaaa());
After:
template <typename T>
auto aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(T t)
-> decltype(eaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa<T>(t.a).aaaaaaaa());
Also add a test case for a difficult template parsing case I stumbled accross.
Needs fixing.
llvm-svn: 239149
Before:
someFunction(() =>
{
doSomething(); // break
})
.doSomethingElse( // break
);
After:
someFunction(() => {
doSomething(); // break
})
.doSomethingElse( // break
);
This is still bad, but at least it is consistent with what we do for other
function literals. Added corresponding tests.
llvm-svn: 238736
A definintion like this could not be formatted at all:
constructor({aa}: {
aa?: string,
aaaaaaaa?: string,
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?: boolean,
aaaaaa?: List<string>
}) {
}
llvm-svn: 238291
instead of BinPackParameters. Braced lists are used as constructor
calls in many places and so the bin-packing should follow what is done
for other calls and not what is done for function declarations.
llvm-svn: 238184
Before:
ASSERT("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa")
<< aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
<< bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb;
After:
ASSERT("aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa") << aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
<< bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb;
Also cleanup implementation a bit and only mark closing parenthesis of
these annotations.
llvm-svn: 237567
before binary/ternary operators.
Basically, it doesn't seem right to indent a nested block aligned to a
binary or ternary operator.
Before:
int i = aaaaaa ? 1 //
: [] {
return 2; //
}();
llvm::errs() << "number of twos is "
<< std::count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), [](int x) {
return x == 2; // force break
});
After:
int i = aaaaaa ? 1 //
: [] {
return 2; //
}();
llvm::errs() << "number of twos is "
<< std::count_if(v.begin(), v.end(), [](int x) {
return x == 2; // force break
});
llvm-svn: 237263
Before:
[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:
aaaaaaaa aaa:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa];
After:
[aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:aaaaaaaa
aaa:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa];
Note that this might now violate the column limit and we probably need an
alternative way of indenting these then. However, that is still strictly better
than the messy formatting that clang-format did before.
llvm-svn: 236598
There was already a TODO to double-check whether the extra indenation
makes sense. A slightly different case reveals that it is actively harmful:
for (int i = 0; i < aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ||
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb < ccccccccccccccc;
++i) {
}
Here (and it is probably not a totally infrequent case, it just works out that
"i < " is four spaces and so the four space extra indentation makes the
operator precedence confusing. So, this will now instead be formatted
as:
for (int i = 0; i < aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ||
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb < ccccccccccccccc;
++i) {
}
llvm-svn: 231461
Before:
Aaaa aaaaaaaaaaa{
{
a, // +1 indent weird.
b, // trailing comma signals one per line.
}, // trailing comma signals one per line.
};
After:
Aaaa aaaaaaaaaaa{
{
a, // better!?
b, // trailing comma signals one per line.
}, // trailing comma signals one per line.
};
Interesting that this apparently was entirely untested :-(.
llvm-svn: 230627
The proper way to break string literals in these languages is by inserting a "+"
between parts which we don't support yet. So we disable string literal breaking
until then.
llvm-svn: 224120
Daniel Jasper