Operators starting a line in an expression with parentheses

[krlmlr]

styler::style_text("function() {\n (a\n||b)\n}", strict = FALSE, scope = "line_breaks")
#> function() {
#>   (a
#>   || b)
#> }

This is rather low priority, just mentioning it for completeness.

[lorenzwalthert]

So do you mean the operator should be moved one line up or?

[krlmlr]

I'm not sure, maybe if we had a rule in tidystyle that forbids starting a line with a binary operator?

[lorenzwalthert]

I think there is no rule. Should I propose one or is is a sufficiently rare case?

[krlmlr]

Good idea.

[lorenzwalthert]

Issue filed.

[lorenzwalthert]

In tidyverse/style#45, it was not considered to be worth to mention in the style guide since such lengthy conditions are considered to be undesirable in the first place.

[lorenzwalthert]

So I suggest to either move the infix operators one line up anyways (for scope >= "line_breaks") or just leave them as is.

[krlmlr]

Can we leave them unchanged and just add a level of indention?

[lorenzwalthert]

Ok, I think we could, it's just we have never done it that way so far I think. So we'd have to add one level of indention only to the token || and leave everything else unchanged since indention is already added (but not active) for all tokens after ||.

[krlmlr]

But then it seems easy to also add indention for the operator token itself, I understand it will be inactive in most cases?

[krlmlr]

And this probably generalizes to other operators?

So, if we are processing (a + b), the + and the b gets indention, which is then activated if there's a newline before either?

[lorenzwalthert]

No, the triggering token itself does (currently) not get indention, only the ones following it. So in your example (to be precise in (a + \nb)), only b gets indented because the closing brace is not in the same nest. It was done that way because braces trigger indention, but they should not be indented. I.e, you don't want

{
  2
}

To become

  {
  2
}

[lorenzwalthert]

However, your case seems a special case. Need to look into it further.