You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Generally I believe that there should be a bigger focus on readability of the concepts. Currently a lot of the more complex concepts are really hard to grog due to unfortunate formatting. I believe that we would gain a lot by spending a few lines more to improve the general readability.
I agree. I've been trying to format the constraint-expressions in concepts as clang-format would - with the expectation that it will reduce churn someday when clang-format learns to understand concepts and requires-clauses - but I've started cheating here and there when it helps readability. We should simply go all in and format them one-term-per-line (except for very simple cases) as in the Ranges TS.
I'll update the concept definitions that this PR touches, and file an issue to make a general audit.
We should audit all concept definitions for readability. Some guidelines:
The first line of the definition may contain multiple terms if they aren't too complex visually.
Try not to split disjunctions across multiple lines if possible (we prefer Conjunctive Normal Form)
Continuation lines should generally have a single term, although there are exceptional cases where multiple terms can better convey structure. For example:
Have issues been filed against clang-format so it will format concepts better someday? I would like to avoid too much manual formatting in the codebase.
Per discussion at #565 (review).
We should audit all concept definitions for readability. Some guidelines:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: