Re: automated formatting

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I want to propose to move to automated formatting for our C++ code.
>>
>> I put up a .clang-format code that mostly mimicks our style at
>>
>>   https://codereview.appspot.com/561340043
>>
>> I have a lot of good experience with automating code formatting.. It
>> removes drudgery for code authors, obviates discussions over style in
>> code review, and generally elevates the level of discourse in our
>> reviews.
>>
>> What do you all think?
>
> scripts/auxiliar/fixcc.py and astyle 2.04 is what we standardized on.
>
>> The current config modifies about 11k lines, mostly because of
>> different line breaks (necessary to keep the 80 column limit.)
>
> Any particular reason to change the automated style to a different one?
> Clang is a pretty big dependency for developers.

I just put up an issue that makes the --sloppy option of fixcc.py work
(but updating to 3.04 does not seem like much of an issue either)

>> Obviously, reformatting code makes patches harder to transport, so
>> we'd have to do it on all active branches at the same time.

That's why I think changing the existing automated formatting style is
an unwanted complication.

In Graham's reign, rerunning the C++ formatter was a pretty frequent
occurence, I think it was more than once yearly.  We also have a Scheme
code formatter that relies on Emacs to do the hard work.

Frankly, I just forgot about either.  I think it would be a good idea to
take up this practice again.  Regarding Clang: unless Astyle falls apart
using C++11 constructs that are going to occur more frequently in
future, I think there is little reason to depart from its use instead of
reverting to Clang.

-- 
David Kastrup