Skip to content
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

Placate a bunch of Allman style violation for #8805 #8817

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

thewilsonator
Copy link
Contributor

I don't necessarily agree with all of these but they show up as conflict for the other PR.

This is a subset, I'll do the other ones later.

I don't necessarily agree with all of these but they show up as conflict for the other PR.

This is a subset, I'll do the other ones later.
@dlang-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @thewilsonator! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

  • My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
  • My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
  • I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
  • New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.


If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + phobos#8817"

Comment on lines +2063 to +2064
() @trusted
{
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

specifically I don't like this type of change

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this definitely looks more correct for allman style, would not remove this from D-Scanner but possibly add some kind of config for this

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That would be great, thanks!

@@ -1208,7 +1209,8 @@ if (!(is(S : T) &&
*/
private template isSwitchable(E)
{
enum bool isSwitchable = is(typeof({
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

and I really don't like this type of change

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

yeah this looks like a bug in D-Scanner

@CyberShadow
Copy link
Member

Can we fix Dscanner instead?

@thewilsonator
Copy link
Contributor Author

@WebFreak001 ?

@RazvanN7
Copy link
Collaborator

any update on this?

@WebFreak001
Copy link
Member

ah none yet, I forgot about this PR

@thewilsonator
Copy link
Contributor Author

ping

@maxhaton
Copy link
Member

maxhaton commented Jan 8, 2024

Can we fix Dscanner instead?

how about stop using it, even.

Enforce trivial matters of style with a formatter, not a linter.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
7 participants