Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

inconsistent indenting for multi-lined requires clauses #3679

Open
burblebee opened this issue Feb 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

inconsistent indenting for multi-lined requires clauses #3679

burblebee opened this issue Feb 14, 2020 · 2 comments
Labels
decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.

Comments

@burblebee
Copy link
Contributor

We're inconsistent when indenting requires clauses which span multiple lines.
Most indent subsequent lines to match up with what follows the requires keyword;
some indent 2 spaces (under the 'q' of the requires keyword).
@JohelEGP
Copy link
Contributor

The motions add many of those within parentheses, at least one even preceded by !. The decision needs to include wether these should be further indented after the parentheses:

requires (forward_iterator<I> || random_access_iterator<O>) &&
         indirectly_copyable<I, O> &&

And a generalization of that rule:

    concept @\defexposconcept{convertible-to-non-slicing}@ =                    // \expos
      convertible_to<From, To> &&
      !(is_pointer_v<decay_t<From>> &&
      is_pointer_v<decay_t<To>> &&

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required. label Jan 3, 2021
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

Editorial meeting: <algorithm> indents to after the "requires" token. Tentatively agreed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
decision-required A decision of the editorial group (or the Project Editor) is required.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@burblebee @JohelEGP @jensmaurer