| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
...even if that can cause reformatting of already formatted code. The problem I
came across is that without this something like
> namespace {
>
> void f1();
>
> void f2();
>
> }
(which is quite a common style in the current code base) would be changed to
> namespace
> {
>
> void f1();
>
> void f2();
> }
instead of
> namespace
> {
> void f1();
>
> void f2();
> }
and I found no other clang-format style option that would result in the
presence or absence of an empty line be identical at the start and end of the
namespace block.
vmiklos asked to reformat the existing new (i.e., non-blacklisted) files at the
same time, so this commit includes that. Some of those new files had not been
formatted at all, so this commit includes their full reformatting changes.
Change-Id: I54daf0c11098d07d02c802104cf7f56372e61f7c
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/44450
Reviewed-by: Thorsten Behrens <Thorsten.Behrens@CIB.de>
Tested-by: Jenkins <ci@libreoffice.org>
Reviewed-by: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>
|
|
Jens says he was unhappy with the 80 cols limit, so clang-format was
explicitly avoided for these new files, but now that the both the config
and TEMPLATE.SOURCECODE.HEADER says 100, it's fine to reformat these to
enforce consistency from now on.
Change-Id: Ia6f0a65920ad2c9d7b0834a0712356568c39624e
|
|
Change-Id: I013ccd0258a567ba69d624a02a4d4daab5c7f4fa
Reviewed-on: https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/44181
Reviewed-by: Jens Carl <j.carl43@gmx.de>
Tested-by: Jens Carl <j.carl43@gmx.de>
|
