code review 3225042: go/printer: preserve newlines in func parameter lists

src/pkg/go/printer/testdata/declarations.golden

 // Copyright 2009 The Go Authors. All rights reserved.
 // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style
 // license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
 
 package imports
 
 import "io"
 
 import (
         _       "io"
@@ skipping 638 matching lines @@
 
 func _(b bool, x ...int)
 func _(b bool, x ...*int)
 func _(b bool, x ...[]int)
 func _(b bool, x ...struct{})
 func _(x ...interface{})
 func _(x ...func())
 func _(x ...func(...int))
 func _(x ...map[string]int)
 func _(x ...chan int)
 

[gri, 2010/12/01 22:41:34]

please two newlines between groups of tests

[jmg, 2010/12/02 17:35:34]

Done.

+
 // these parameter lists must remain multi-line since they are multi-line in the source
 func _(bool,
 int) {

[gri, 2010/12/01 22:41:34]

I am wondering if there should be indentation here. Something one can fine-tune
later.

[jmg, 2010/12/02 17:35:34]

This matches the existing behavior for func param lists with a \n in between two
param names rather than after a type name. The last test case in this revision
of the change was already passing before I modified nodes.go.

I'm happy to make the change, but I've actually grown to like the lack of
indentation there.  I find that it makes it more clear where the func body
starts.

 }
 func _(x bool,
 y int) {
 }
 func _(x,
 y bool) {
 }

[gri, 2010/12/01 22:41:34]

Please add more examples that test the behavior if comments are following groups
of equally-typed parameters.

[jmg, 2010/12/02 17:35:34]

I've added a number of additional test cases with comments in various places
while trying to identify the difference in behavior of the newSection param of
linebreak.  All the test cases pass regardless of that param.

Please let me know which of the test cases you think should be kept.

+func _(bool,    // comment
+int) {
+}
+func _(x bool,  // comment
+y int) {
+}
+func _(x,       // comment
+y bool) {
+}
+func _(bool,    // comment
+// comment
+int) {
+}
+func _(x bool,  // comment
+// comment
+y int) {
+}
+func _(x,       // comment
+// comment
+y bool) {
+}
+func _(bool,
+// comment
+int) {
+}
+func _(x bool,
+// comment
+y int) {
+}
+func _(x,
+// comment
+y bool) {
+}
+func _(x,       // comment
+y,      // comment
+z bool) {
+}
+func _(x,       // comment
+y,      // comment
+z bool) {
+}
+func _(x int,   // comment
+y float,        // comment
+z bool) {
+}