c0bdbfa531
Preparation for #865, which proposes adding a flag which outputs which config options are used during formatting. This PR should not make any difference to functionality. A lot of this was search-and-replace. Some areas worthy of review/discussion: - The method for each config item returns a clone of the underlying value. We can't simply return an immutable reference, as lots of places in the code expect to be able to pass the returned value as `bool` (not `&bool). It would be nice if the `bool` items could return a copy, but the more complex types a borrowed reference... but unfortunately, I couldn't get the macro to do this. - A few places (mostly tests and `src/bin/rustfmt.rs`) were overriding config items by modifying the fields of the `Config` struct directly. They now use the existing `override_value()` method, which has been modified to return a `Result` for use by `src/bin/rustfmt.rs`. This benefits of this are that the complex `file_lines` and `write_mode` strings are now parsed in one place (`Config.override_value`) instead of multiple. The disadvantages are that it moves the compile-time checks for config names to become run-time checks. |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| config | ||
| coverage | ||
| source | ||
| target | ||
| writemode | ||
| system.rs | ||