Hi,
On 2023-01-21 14:05:41 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 12:59 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Hmm, that could be a deal-breaker. It's not going to be acceptable
> > to have to pgindent different parts of the system on different platforms
> > ... at least not unless we can segregate them on the file level, and
> > even that would have a large PITA factor.
Unless I miss something, I don't think clang-format actually does that level
of C parsing - you can't pass include paths etc, so it really can't.
> It's probably something that could be worked around. My remarks are
> based on some dim memories of dealing with the tool before I arrived
> at a configuration that works well enough for me.
Could you share your .clang-format?
> > Still, we won't know unless someone makes a serious experiment with it.
>
> There is one thing about clang-format that I find mildly infuriating:
> it can indent function declarations in the way that I want it to, and
> it can indent variable declarations in the way that I want it to. It
> just can't do both at the same time, because they're both controlled
> by AlignConsecutiveDeclarations.
>
> Of course the way that I want to do things is (almost by definition)
> the pgindent way, at least right now -- it's not necessarily about my
> fixed preferences (though it can be hard to tell!). It's really not
> surprising that clang-format cannot quite perfectly simulate pgindent.
> How flexible can we be about stuff like that? Obviously there is no
> clear answer right now.
I personally find the current indentation of variables assignment deeply
unhelpful - but changing it would be a very noisy change.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
