Space and bracket pretty-printed ternary conditionals #3474
Conversation
At the moment we get e.g. y == x == z?1:2, this changes that to y == (x == z ? 1 : 2) which makes the precedence clearer and spaces the operator more cleanly.
smowton
requested review from
kroening,
peterschrammel,
pkesseli and
tautschnig
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: ca55615).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/92815813
| << ':' << format(if_expr.false_case()); | ||
| return os << "(" << format(if_expr.cond()) << " ? " | ||
| << format(if_expr.true_case()) << " : " | ||
| << format(if_expr.false_case()) << ")"; | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use '(' etc. for the single letters?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Done (plus two other similar changes in the same file)
|
Shouldn't we properly do precedence instead, much like |
|
I would add the parentheses for any use of ?: as subexpression. Precendences can be tough for the reader when they go beyond the ones we learn in primary school. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✔️
Passed Diffblue compatibility checks (cbmc commit: d4d7af4).
Build URL: https://travis-ci.com/diffblue/test-gen/builds/92978446
At the moment we get e.g. y == x == z?1:2, this changes that to y == (x == z ? 1 : 2)
which makes the precedence clearer and spaces the operator more cleanly.