GNU bug report logs - #6318
reindenting with uncrustify, maybe...

Previous Next

Package: coreutils;

Reported by: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>

Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 11:04:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: notabug

Full log


Message #23 received at 6318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> CS.UCLA.EDU>
Cc: 6318 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, uncrustify-developer <at> lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: bug#6318: reindenting with uncrustify, maybe...
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 07:29:24 +0200
Paul Eggert wrote:

> On 06/02/2010 01:28 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Maybe a bug.  Or maybe there's an option to force a newline after
>> a case statement's ":", and we just need to find it and turn it on.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure I want uncrustify to be that aggressive about
> reformatting.  In general, come to think of it, many of the things
> I'm leery about in uncrustify come about when it inserts newlines.
> Perhaps it should have an option to shut that off?

Maybe it does, already.
I honestly don't know.  For each case like this
it's a bit of a treasure hunt: will we find the option
we want, already in working order?

>>> This is insisting on the style where preprocessor directives are
>>> indented independently of the non-preprocessor directives.  But it's
>>> sometimes (as here) nice to use consistent indenting, for both
>>> directives and non-directives.
>>
>> Would be nice, but how do we (not to mention the tool) know when it's desired?
>
> How about if we assume that it's always desired?  That is a conservative
> assumption, and should work reasonably well in practice.

And maybe there's already an option for that.
Care to look and/or to add it?

>> I hope we can arrange something.
>> uncrustify's code seems readable and maintainable enough that
>> if something needs to be changed and we're motivated enough,
>> we can do it ourselves.
>
> Yes, that's a big advantage.  It would be nice if this would
> end up working out.
>
>
>> I wouldn't want to use two spaces all the time,
>> perhaps only when there are "," expressions in first and/or third term.
>
> Could we have it use two spaces if there are already two spaces,
> and use one space if there aren't?  Again, take the conservative
> approach.

That'd be best, but from my brief foray into uncrustify's code,
there is no option for that.  Do you feel like investigating
and adding one, if needed?

>> I've just added this to my ~/.uncrustify.cfg, and it appears to do
>> part of what you want by leaving one space between the adjacent semicolons.
>>
>> sp_before_semi_for_empty = add
>
> Thanks.  How should developers synchronize on their .uncrustify.cfg?
> Surely this should be per-package, not per-developer.

Yes, of course.
I'm keeping the initial churn separate from any code base.
I will add it to coreutils' repository before we start using it in earnest.




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 334 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.