-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 766
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Decide how to indent class template definitions #1754
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: