Poll/discussion: dfmt option for single vs double indents for multi-line code

[An Pham]

On Friday, 29 December 2023 at 09:08:33 UTC, Prajwal S N wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As a part of SAOC 2023, I've been working on porting dfmt to 
> use the AST from DMD instead of libdparse (you might have come 
> across my weekly updates). There are a few passes in the 
> original dfmt that seem to allow for a purely aesthetic 
> formatting inconsistency, and I wanted some community opinion 
> on whether these should be made available in dmdfmt, or whether 
> it would be better to retire them.
>
> - `dfmt_single_template_constraint_indent`: If set to true, 
> indents multi-line template constraints with a single tab. The 
> default is false. E.g.
>     ```d
>     // default
>     void foo(T)()
>             if (is(T == char) || is(T == dchar))
>     // true
>     void foo(T)()
>         if (is(T == char) || is(T == dchar))
>     ```
> - `dfmt_single_indent`: If set to true, indents multi-line 
> function declarations with a single tab. The default is false. 
> E.g.
>     ```d
>     // default
>     void foo(int a, char b, string c, int d,
>             char e, string f) {}
>     // true
>     void foo(int a, char b, string c, int d,
>         char e, string f) {}
>     ```
>

> What do you think about this? Would it be better to maintain a 
> single standard for indentation and not allow configuration, or 
> should a knob be provided at the cost of consistency?

Why not using 'int' instead as type for number of tabs. For 
template restriction, I do not want any tab