Suboptimal binary + operator formatting about prettier HOT 8 CLOSED

That's not intentional, and is ugly. Binary operators are a bit difficult to get right. We can play with this.

from prettier.

@llimllib what format do you think we should do? Either:

lots + of + additions + are + put + into + some +
  weird + format + thats + ugly + 0;

lots +
  of +
  additions +
  are +
  put +
  into +
  some +
  weird +
  format +
  thats +
  ugly +
  0;

from prettier.

(I'm following along the livestream)

I vote for option 2, especially for LogicalExpressions. They can often look like this:

someLongCondition() ||
  this.someMethod() === someValue ||
  (somethingElseIsTrue && somethingElse === false)

that is, the contents of each condition are longish.

BinaryExpressions, where you often are adding and subtracting a bunch of things (as in the example) might be different, but option 2 is a reasonable default for this case.

from prettier.

I feel like 1) the line should be maximized, similarly to how objects are and 2) the comparison is different than the additions?

So my favorite is:

lots + of + additions + are + put + into + some + weird + format + thats + 
  ugly > 0;

and I don't at all mind:

lots + of + additions + are + put + into + some +
  weird + format + thats + ugly > 0;

I'm not a big fan of, but I could tolerate:

lots +
  of +
  additions +
  are +
  put +
  into +
  some +
  weird +
  format +
  thats +
  ugly > 0;

But I really hate

lots +
  of +
  additions +
  are +
  put +
  into +
  some +
  weird +
  format +
  thats +
  ugly >
  0;

from prettier.

Yeah, what does this look like when mixing LogicalExpressions and BinaryExpressions, and mixing operators of varying precedence?

from prettier.

Let's consolidate fixing binary/logical operators in #89. I'm working on this now.

from prettier.

@llimllib check out #262. Unfortunately right now the PR implements the option you hate most. It's a big refactoring though so I'd like to land at least this right now. There are some very tricky rules getting this to work.

I'd like to follow-up and see if we can get a better style, but this gives us better grounding.

from prettier.

Heck, with a quick hack I was able to implement something like this:

  var z = 1 + 2 + 3 * (4 * 5 + 3) / (100000000000000000 * 328233872942374 +
      3423942394239) + 2343242342342343 + 10000;

I will follow-up in the PR.

from prettier.