Skip to content

Conversation

@nick-thompson
Copy link
Collaborator

Big change, but all this really does is use the clang-format file that @JoshMarler mentioned in #24 with juce-like defaults and run it against blueprint/core/*

Let me know what you think!


//==============================================================================
void AppHarness::watch (const juce::File& f)
void AppHarness::watch(const juce::File& f)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are we trying to stick to the juce style guide? If so I think non-empty parens would have a preceding space (i.e. SpaceBeforeParens: NonEmptyParentheses instead of SpaceBeforeParens: ControlStatements)

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Heh. Hopefully we don't need to fully comply .... I hate that leading space.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Haha, such a can of worms this business. I'm in the not caring so long as a tool is doing it for me camp.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hah, I'll admit, I'm also not a fan of that leading space. Generally though, I too am in the "i don't care let's just standardize it" camp.

I think generally if we can reach a small consensus of "yea looks good enough for me" then we should go for it

return (this->timeoutsManager.get()->*method)(_args.arguments[0]);
}
}));
registerNativeProperty(name, juce::var::NativeFunction([this, name, method](const juce::var::NativeFunctionArgs& _args) -> juce::var {
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not a big fan of the way this indents the inline lambda here... is there a way to nudge this back as it was?

duk_destroy_heap
);
duk_create_heap(nullptr, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr, detail::fatalErrorHandler),
duk_destroy_heap);
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also not a huge fan of pulling this trailing comma up. But my clang-format knowledge is weak here :)

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants