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
Clean up tools/obabel.cpp #2152
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
e-kwsm
commented
Apr 2, 2020
- clang-format
- use continue appropriately to reduce nesting levels
Sounds good but I can't review this patch, as it mixes whitespace changes with code changes. If you keep these in separate commits, then we see what's changed at each step, but when you merge them we haven't any idea. |
Separated into commits. |
Some of these commits involve syntax changes that change code that is working fine now into code that may only be supported by newer compilers. I'm not familiar enough with the details of every compiler version to know exactly when these features were introduced, and what version of gcc ships with what version of CentOS. Every time I see newer syntax in a PR I think to myself - well, how can I merge this if I don't know whether it will cause problems for people? Maybe @ghutchis has another take on this. |
I'm not sure about the the {} notation, but I'm willing to discuss that on-list. |
Curly braces for constructor calls are fine since at least C++11 and have some advantages: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15396124/calling-constructor-with-braces |
Most patches seem OK at a glance, although it is difficult to overview the if statement change. As regards whitespace changes, in principle I support an automatic cleanup and uniformisation of the code, but the proposed whitespace format is not attractive in my eyes. It is too condensed. Below is an example from GROMACS that uses clang-format as well and which is much more readable IMHO.
|
137bd66
to
0aa4248
Compare
5dd8241
to
704476a
Compare
704476a
to
6b34eee
Compare