bug#62386: CC Mode 5.35.2 (C++//l); C++ concept indentation

Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> writes:

>> Before:
>
>>   template <typename T>
>>   requires (OctetLike<T>
>>             || (std::rank_v<T> == 1 && std::extent_v<T> == 0
>>                 && OctetLike<std::remove_extent_t<T>>))
>>   Chunk(std::shared_ptr<T> const & p, length_t size)
>>   : data_{p, octet_cast(p.get())},
>>     size_{size}
>>   {}
>
>
>> After:
>
>>   template <typename T>
>>   requires (OctetLike<T>
>>     || (std::rank_v<T> == 1 && std::extent_v<T> == 0
>>     && OctetLike<std::remove_extent_t<T>>))
>>   Chunk(std::shared_ptr<T> const & p, length_t size)
>>     : data_{p, octet_cast(p.get())},
>>       size_{size}
>>   {}
>
> This is a difficult one.  Aligning the || under OctetLike causes problems
> when the parenthesis is already far to the right, for example if requires
> is on the same line as template.  Then everything will be indented too
> far to the right.  This dilemma has come up at least twice before.
>
> I think what's worse is the lack of further indentation of the && line.
> I don't know what to do about that, at the moment.

I guess I just see it as the standard parenthesized expression problem
that already exists.  It's generally up to the programmer to make sure
opening parentheses don't happen too far to the right.

I agree about the && line.

> I'm also a little bit worried about the "virtual semicolon" detection on
> some more complicated requires constructs.
>
> Anyhow, I think I'll commit what I've got, and leave these doubts to be
> cleared up later.

Sure.  I'm generally happy with the improvements that have been made so
far.

-- 
Michael Welsh Duggan
([email protected])