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
letl:version_string=matchstr(l:version_output, '\v\d+(.\d+)+')
" If no version string was matched, cached version will be an empty list.lets:clang_format_version=map(split(l:version_string, '\.'), 'v:val + 0')
which is trying to find a version number (possibly "1.2.3" or "1.2" or just "1") in the output of clang-format --version:
$ clang-format --version
clang-format version 7.0.1-8+deb10u2 (tags/RELEASE_701/final)
However, for trunk builds, the output looks something like:
clang-format --version
clang-format version mainline (4321b9f2e9842982d13234920a643e3a4657c60b)
(where "mainline" can be any string the configurer chooses).
However:
matchstr(l:version_output, '\v\d+(.\d+)+') has . matching any character. That probably was intended to be a literal (\.) instead, otherwise the pattern could just have been \v\d.+.
As a result, we consider any trunk build to be a version "number" containing the numeric start of the hex string (i.e. version 4321 in the above example).
This means that we usually consider trunk builds to have all features (good), but only if their version string starts with enough non-zero/non-hex digits (bad).
We probably should do something like:
Change the regexp to use \. instead to match a literal.
For "2. Consider a non-standard version to always have the feature" — That's just to say we have no idea, so we'll err on the side of trying to use the new feature?
At https://github.com/google/vim-codefmt/blob/293c208/autoload/codefmt/clangformat.vim#L32-34, we have this code:
which is trying to find a version number (possibly "1.2.3" or "1.2" or just "1") in the output of
clang-format --version
:However, for trunk builds, the output looks something like:
(where "mainline" can be any string the configurer chooses).
However:
matchstr(l:version_output, '\v\d+(.\d+)+')
has.
matching any character. That probably was intended to be a literal (\.
) instead, otherwise the pattern could just have been\v\d.+
.We probably should do something like:
\.
instead to match a literal.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: