Aligning single parameters for functional calls

[jelliottp]

Aligning single parameters for functional calls

[jmgrassau]

Hi Josh,

good point – I completely agree that no-one would want …

class->method( CHANGING
                 field1 = value1 ).

That was easy to fix. However, what should be done if someone configures this:

Should the rule then continue after the keywords as well (ignoring the second setting) …

class->method( CHANGING field1 = value1
                        field2 = value2
                        field3 = value3 ).

… or would you then rather expect …

class->method( CHANGING
                 field1 = value1
                 field2 = value2
                 field3 = value3 ).

… for cases that are not one-liners?

Not sure here. We could of course turn the "…put keywords … on own line" into a selection, e.g. "Always / Only below the call / Never"; then the second option would 'allow' us to behave differently if we continue after the call.

Kind regards,
Jörg-Michael

[jmgrassau]

Hi Josh,

version 1.4.1 was just released and should do the trick for one-liners. Keeping this open, though, to find a solution for multi-line cases as well.

Kind regards,
Jörg-Michael

[jelliottp]

Thank you!

Regarding the multi-line cases, we are not running into this since we're limiting to 1 parameter behind the call. However, if I was to use it for multiple lines and I had the "Put keywords on own line" setting on, I would assume I'd get this:

class->method( CHANGING
                 field1 = value1
                 field2 = value2
                 field3 = value3 ).

I would like to hear from others though who are using the settings in this manner.

[jmgrassau]

Hi Josh,

perfect, then the behavior for >1 parameter is as you would expect it, too. Unless someone explicitly wants >1 parameters cases to look different, we can close this for now!

Kind regards,
Jörg-Michael