Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This makes two changes that improve how assignments are formatted:
Prior to this change, if you had:
The formatter would give you:
It attached the comment to the
..setter
, which was the LHS of the assignment. Then, because there was a newline inside the LHS, it forced a split at the=
. Instead, we hoist those leading comments out, similar to how we handle binary operators. In fact, I did some refactoring to get rid of duplicate code in InfixPiece that handled leading comments.In the process of fixing 1, I ran into a similar problem. If you had:
The formatter would give you:
However, the solution is different in this case. With cascade setters, the target of the
=
is just the..setter
. With a non-cascade setter, the target is the entiretarget // Comment \n.setter
part. That does contain a newline, and we can't hoist the comment out of the assignment because the target really is the entiretarget // Comment \n.setter
expression.Instead, we treat call chains on the LHS of assignments as "block formattable". "Block" is kind of a misnomer here because what it really means is "allow a newline without splitting at the
=
or increasing indentation". I can't think of a good term for that.That change fixes the above example, but also generally improves how setter calls are formatted when the target is a large call chain expression like:
This second change isn't entirely... principled? But I tested on a giant corpus and when it kicks in, it invariably produces nicer output.
Fix #1429.