Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

>> Though, the anchor still anchors on the template<> line rather than the
>> struct line in:
>
>>   template<size_t _Nw>
>>   struct _Base_bitset
>>   {
>
>> ... making it impossible (AFAICT) to create a style that implements:
>
>>   template<size_t _Nw>
>>     struct _Base_bitset
>>     {
>>     };
>
>>   struct foo
>>   {
>>   };
>
>> instead, the former gets formatted as:
>
>>   template<size_t _Nw>
>>     struct _Base_bitset
>>   {
>>   };
>
>> Is this intended?
>
> Apologies.  I missed this second point in your original bug report.

Admittedly, I had considered making it two bug reports because the
issues seemed separate to me, but I wasn't sure if one caused the other
or vice-versa.  So, I don't blame you :-)

> This should be fixable, but will be more work to fix than the other
> point.
>
> I think something like the following would do it: we could add a second
> anchor point to topmost-intro-cont forms, that second point pointing at
> struct.  In languages without templates/generics, or in constructs
> lacking template components, both anchor points would be the same.
>
> So you could write an alignment function which would use that second
> anchor point for class-open lines and the like.  Or, just possibly, we
> might be able to make that second point the default for class-open.  This
> should keep backward compatibility.  I'll have to think about this.
>
> And of course, the manual and test programs will need amending, too.  ;-)

That sounds lovely - thanks in advance, if you do, indeed, decide to do
it.  For now, I can get this patch implemented with some manual
indenting.

Thanks for the quick fix, have a lovely day :-)
-- 
Arsen Arsenović