Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?
Mark Wielaard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gdb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Andrew, On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 11:54 +0000, Andrew Burgess wrote: > Mark Wielaard <[email protected]> writes: > > > But is there already a verions that works? I think that is the > > difference between the python black formatter for python code and the > > clang-format for C and C++ code. It seems for the python code there is > > a supported format that matches what is used, but for clang-format > > there is not (yet?). > > I'm a little confused by your point here. You (correctly) point out > above that the output from black is pretty stable across versions. > > But here it almost seems like you're suggesting that we should chase the > latest clang-format because it doesn't (currently) support the style we > use. Which would seem to suggest we are hoping it _will_ change, which > suggests output instability, which, surely, is a bad thing? But like I > said, I didn't really understand the question here... Sorry, I was just observing that I believe the python with black case and the C and C++ case with clang-format are not the same. I think we are in agreement that the python case is probably fine (we just disagree about whether it is future proof - I think we can use whatever version of black, you are skeptical that the formatting will stay the same). But for clang-format we don't have a format that seems acceptable (to at least to some people) and older versions seems to produce different formatting from newer versions. Cheers, Mark