Re: GOP-PROP 3: C++ formatting (update)

[Keith OHara]

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 21:05:51 -0700, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:

> On 6/29/11 6:01 PM, "Keith OHara" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Graham Percival <graham <at> percival-music.ca> writes:
> >
> > > At the moment I'm leaning towards using astyle+postprocessing.

> > padding that can be helpful
> > -      && ((d == LEFT && !line_->get_bound (LEFT))
> > -          || (end && d == RIGHT && !line_->get_bound (RIGHT))))
> > +      && ( (d == LEFT && !line_->get_bound (LEFT))
> > +           || (end && d == RIGHT && !line_->get_bound (RIGHT))))
>
> I am ambivalent about the padding above.

By the way, this is an example where post-processing can cause trouble.  s/( 
(/((/g  subtly misaligns the indentation
+      && ((d == LEFT && !line_->get_bound (LEFT))
+           || (end && d == RIGHT && !line_->get_bound (RIGHT))))
but if we fiddle with padding first and let Astyle indent without the padding 
options, then everything is copacetic.

> > or maybe annoying
> > -    if (Stem::get_beam ((*stems_)[i]))
> > +    if (Stem::get_beam ( (*stems_) [i]))
>
> I very much dislike the padding above here.  Both the space before (*stems)
> and the space before [i].

> Do you have the ability to easily test a change that doesn't pad a
> parenthesis if it's following the same character, ie. (( won't get an extra
> space?
Maybe.  Astyle is open-source and clearly written, but I haven't looked at this 
area of the code.
It would be harder than testing a sed expression for pre-processing, but easier 
than figuring out fixcc.py.

> And is there an option to avoid padding [?

No.  In the language of Astyle's options, the padding is associated with the ) 
before the [.  There is an open feature request for an option that pads only 
before the ( of a function call operator, which would fill our current need.
I assume the requested option would also pad the cast operator, (int) (n / d)