Re: Clang-format configuration discussion - pt 1

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.11.2023 15:59, 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.
> 
> 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?

I did raise what was occurring to me. This doesn't mean that down the
road yet something else might not pop up.

Jan