Re: Clang-format configuration discussion - pt 1

[Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 02:59:35PM +0000, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 13 Nov 2023, at 16:27, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > On 13.11.2023 16:20, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> >>> On 13 Nov 2023, at 11:31, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 08.11.2023 10:53, Luca Fancellu wrote:
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 
> >>>> Standard: C++03
> >>>> 
> >>>> ---
> >>>> From the documentation: Parse and format C++ constructs compatible with 
> >>>> this standard.
> >>> 
> >>> Since I continue to be puzzled - iirc you said this is because of lack
> >>> of availability of "C99" as a value here. What's entirely unclear to
> >>> me is: How does this matter to a tool checking coding style (which is
> >>> largely about formatting, not any lexical or syntactical aspects)?
> >>> 
> >>>> This value is used also in Linux.
> >>> 
> >>> Considering how different the two styles are, I don't think this is
> >>> overly relevant.
> >> 
> >> Ok, maybe I understand your point, you are looking for a reason to declare 
> >> this configurable instead
> >> of not specifying it at all?
> > 
> > Not really, no. Here I was merely saying that with the styles being
> > sufficiently different, what Linux uses is probably not very significant
> > for our own decision.
> > 
> >> If it’s that, from what I understand clang-format will use the default 
> >> value if we don’t specify anything
> >> for this one, so it will take ‘Latest’. I think we should put a value for 
> >> this one to fix it and don’t have
> >> surprises if that behaviour changes and seeing that also in Linux that 
> >> value is fixed increased my
> >> confidence.
> >> 
> >> However, if you feel that we should not specify it, I’ve done a test and 
> >> not specifying it is not changing
> >> the current output. I can’t say that for a different clang-format version 
> >> though or if changes happen in the
> >> future.
> > 
> > It's fine to set values. All I'm saying is that at least I would prefer
> > if it was also clear what exact effect the setting of a value has,
> > especially when that does not really match the language we use in the
> > project.
On C, allegedly, none. It ought to control defaults for things like
SpaceBeforeCpp11BracedList, SpacesInAngles and other C++-specific things,
because the C++ language sticks syntactical extensions every other Tuesday.
Alas, whatever it does (there's no full list). I'd feel a lot more
comfortable knowing it won't change under our feet.

For reference, clang-format's docs state as an example:

```
c++03:                                 latest:
vector<set<int> > x;           vs.     vector<set<int>> x;
```

> 
> Yes I agree, I think Alejandro’s reply to this configurable reflects my 
> thoughts about it.
> 
> So if we all agree that we should set this parameter, do we all agree that it 
> should be the
> value above?
> 
> Do you have other concerns regarding this or the other parameters in this 
> thread?
> 
> 

Cheers,
Alejandro