[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "enum class" supports for cc-mode
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: "enum class" supports for cc-mode |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:21:45 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Hello, Daniel.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:02:28PM +0000, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 04:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 06:36:09PM +0000, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> >> Here's a small patch that teaches cc-mode about C++11 "enum class" syntax.
> >> See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2dzy4k6e.aspx
I've installed the patch.
Just as a matter of interest, I had to toughen up
c-backward-colon-prefixed-type, since it had supriously captured
class Foo {
public:
enum {
, mistaking the colon after "public" for a colon inside an enum
declaration.
Also, in general, please prefer tabs to spaces for indentation in CC
Mode. In cc-langs.el, there's no need for a blank line between
(c-lang-defconst foo ..) and (c-lang-defvar foo ...).
> Thanks.
> > Just one or two little details:
> > (i) You've used `eql' rather than `eq' for comparing things in a few
> > places. Is there any reason for this?
> eql is a good habit for numbers; = and eq would work just as well in
> these contexts though in Emacs.
OK. I've left eql in.
> > (ii) c-after-brace-list-key will be "\\<\\>" (not nil) for non-C++
> > languages, I think. It's definition in cc-langs.el needs tweaking a
> > bit to make it nil.
> Good point. Would you mind making this change?
My mistake - the "\\<\\>" value was needed somewhere else. I changed the
test against nil to an `equal' test against "\\<\\>". It seems to work.
> > (iii) There's a question as to whether the backward searching in
> > c-backward-colon-prefixed-type should have an optional search limit.
> > But the existing c-backward-over-enum-header doesn't, so that's
> > something new to think about.
> I figure that the search will stop soon enough when we come across a
> token that can't be part of the enum header. Placing a generically
> correct bound on it seemed hard.
It is, isn't it. What will cost is if there's an unbalanced close
paren/brace/bracket. That might cause a lot of scanning from BOB. I'll
have another look at this, sometime.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).