Open westonpace opened 1 year ago
I can finish this in parquet, should I create an extra issue for that?
I can finish this in parquet, should I create an extra issue for that?
Sure, that would probably be best. Then we can leave this one open for everything else. Thanks!
is this issue still open ?
Hi, everyone I am a beginner in open source, and I am interested in working on this issue please someone help and guides me on, how to start I know C, C++, and Java programming languages
take
This issue can be easily fixed by running clang-tidy --checks='-*,modernize-concat-nested-namespaces' --fix
on all source files, but there are still 2 problems I'm not sure about:
as for the comment following the right end of brackets, like
namespace A {
namespace B {
...
} // namespace B
} // namespace A
clang-tidy will fix it with comments not changed.
namespace A::B {
} // namespace A
do I need to fix it too?
Could you give me some advice? thx @westonpace
pre-commit run --all
?I've submitted a patch in #43420. While there are still some unresolved cases there, I believe the majority have been addressed.
Ideally, running clang-tidy should resolve this issue effortlessly. But in practice, some code in gandiva
and flight/transport
is hard for me to build successfully.
In addition, clang-tidy encounters a bug when dealing with nested namespaces interspersed with macros. see details in
so must be careful!
Describe the enhancement requested
I'm seeing some PRs start to prefer the nested namespace notation. I know clang-tidy prefers it. It is more compact and now that we are on C++ 17 I don't see any reason we shouldn't move everything over.
Before:
After:
Sub issues:
Component(s)
C++