Is there any reason not to use the official clang-format package?

[Sarcasm]

Hello,

I see that the clang-format recipe added in the pull request #1654 doesn't link to the official clang-format.el. Is there any reason? The Clang folks are very active and friendly, if the official clang-format.el doesn't is missing some piece it should be improved.

If I want to depend on clang-format on the future I don't want to have 2 different packages with the same name but different interface.

Any thought @kljohann?

At least the package should be renamed IMHO.

The official clang-format.el is located here: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/tools/clang-format/clang-format.el

Best,
Guillaume

[purcell]

The official clang-format.el would indeed be preferable. It is currently not a well-formatted package, though, so it would need fixing up. Perhaps @kljohann could volunteer to be the official maintainer, and take care of syncing his changes into the llvm repo?

[kljohann]

Sure, sounds like the best way to go forward. Apart from the package.el header, my version provides defcustoms, so one does not have to go around editing the original file (which would not work well for use as a package). A quick glance suggests that the behaviour should be roughly the same, apart from some compatibility functions I'd have to add.
I don't know when I'll have time to do this, though. At the latest during the holidays, I hope. I'll open a separate issue at https://github.com/kljohann/clang-format.el to remind me.

[purcell]

Thanks. I'll leave this open and we can review it in the new year. :-)