Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

68579Re: [PATCH] add 'cinoption' "E" to correctly indent enum for Java code

Expand Messages
  • Hong Xu
    Mar 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mar 5, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:

      >
      > Hong Xu wrote:
      >
      >> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:16:48 AM UTC-8, Lech Lorens wrote:
      >>> Wouldn't it be better to use the existing 'cinoptions' entry jN? It's
      >>>
      >>> related to Java...
      >>
      >> This is also what I am hesitating at. But people who need the original 'j' option may not need this option (and vice versa) for the use of their languages (Javascript?), so I finally splitted them.
      >>>
      >>>
      >>> BTW, in the past I made a number of modifications to the indenting
      >>>
      >>> code. It was like treading on a mine field (lots of things I could
      >>>
      >>> break). Would you, please, also include a test case for your
      >>>
      >>> functionality so that the next person that modifies get_c_indent()
      >>>
      >>> does not break what you've achieved?
      >>
      >> Thanks for the reminder. I have included the test case in the new
      >> attached patch.
      >
      > Thanks, tests are good. However, it seems the test passes without your
      > patch.
      >

      I tried without the patch, but they cannot pass on my computer... This
      is weird.

      > "static" is already checked for and skipped above the lines you insert.
      > Without a flag to enable this. I don't see much of a problem also
      > skipping the public/private/protected attributes without a flag.
      >

      We do need the second check inside the loop, since people may write either:

      public static enum
      static public enum


      Yes, I do agree with you about the flag to enable this. We really don't
      need any flags to enable this since nothing is messed up with this
      additional feature. I attached a new patch here, with updated code and
      an updated test.

      > Actually, what really matters is the check for "=". I think it should
      > be ignored for Java, the "j" flag.

      I tried to add a flag here, but it seems the 'J' option is broken in
      this way (test3 would fail).


      Thanks,
      Hong

      --
      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

      ---
      You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group.
      To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vim_dev+unsubscribe@....
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic