Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?

Mark Wielaard <[email protected]> writes:

> 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

Just for the record, my concerns about using a tool to format C/C++ code
hold just as much for Python (i.e. I don't really think our current use
of black is "fine"), but I just don't care enough to express an opinion
(before now).

>                                                         (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.

I'd assumed the output of clang-format would be mostly stable, if that's
known not to be true then I think that's a stronger argument for using a
known version.

Thanks,
Andrew