Re: Any concrete plans after the GDB BoF?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> I agree with all you said.  There is always some resistance related to
> how clang-format handles this or that case.  In my opinion, that's minor
> compared to the benefit of using it.  My opinion would be: make the
> clang-format config that is closest to our style today, make a big
> re-format, and carry on.

I agree with that. As long as the formatting is consistent, it might
take a little getting used to, but I think we'll be happier if we don't
have to spend time worrying about code formatting.

The one small obstacle, perhaps, might be if different versions of
the tool format things differently. In that case, we might have to
clearly state which version we expect the code to be formatted with.
I am thinking of the kind of issues we get with the configury which
is generated by the auto tools, which is so dependent on the version
that even the distro-provided versions introduce spurious differences
sometimes, as a result of which I have built my own set of vanilla
autotools. If clang-format is tricky to build, we may have issues
in that respect...

-- 
Joel