-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 770
Decide how to indent class template definitions #1754
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Comments
Editorial meeting consensus: 1 and 3 for definitions and 1 and 2 for non-defining declarations. Also have line breaks between definitions. |
When performing any changes, make sure to also consider "namespace std" wrappers: #1168. |
Let's double-check our decisions in Jacksonville (cognizant of earlier wobbling) before embarking on a harmonization frenzy. |
Decision confirmed with @zygoloid. I updated the wiki to replace contradictory information with guidance that matches this decision. |
E.g. apply guidance from #1754, adjust comment columns.
We currently have several different styles of indenting class template definitions. Usually, every "structural" line break causes an extra indent level, like we have in synopses:
But when it comes to definitions, we sometimes follow this convention and othertimes we violate it:
"No linebreak after
template
":"linebreak and indent":
"linebreak with no indent":
Of these three options, (1) and (2) seem the most consistent. Option (1) is not always feasible when the template parameter list is long. However, option (3) is used a lot, especially in the older parts of the text (e.g. [containers]).
For now, I will probably retain the local style, though if I need to add missing
namespace std {
s and the indentation changes, I might as well remove instances of (3). But it would be good to decide on a definite style and record that in the wiki. (My vote would be to allow only (1) and (2).)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: