Add consistency to parameter lists formatting

[arbitrary-dev]

To make it more in line with argument list formatting of #classes

[SethTisue]

can't say I've seen this style around much. is there any evidence there's consensus on this? does scalafmt do it this way?

[arbitrary-dev]

is there any evidence there's consensus on this?

Not that I'm aware of.

To my opinion, parameter lists for method should be formatted the same as for classes, but currently they are different, which is confusing.

does scalafmt do it this way?

Here's default formatting with scalafmt 2.7.5:

sbt:scalafmtRoot> tests/testOnly *FormatTests -- -z "Test default param list formatting"
[info] Compiling 1 Scala source to /home/man/work/scalafmt/scalafmt-dynamic/target/scala-2.13/classes ...
[info] Compiling 2 Scala sources to /home/man/work/scalafmt/scalafmt-core/jvm/target/scala-2.13/classes ...
FormatTests:92 Total explored: 316
[info] FormatTests:
[info] - default/DefDef.stat:327: Test default param list formatting           | *** FAILED ***
[info]   ===========
[info]   => Obtained
[info]   ===========
[info]   protected def forResource(resourceInfo: Any)(f: (JsonNode) => Any)(implicit
[info]       urlCreator: URLCreator,
[info]       configurer: OAuthConfiguration): Any = {
[info]     ???
[info]   }
[info]   
[info]            
[info]   =======
[info]   => Diff
[info]   =======
[info]   -protected def forResource(resourceInfo: Any)
[info]   -                         (f: (JsonNode) => Any)
[info]   -                         (implicit urlCreator: URLCreator, configurer: OAuthConfiguration): Any = {
[info]   +protected def forResource(resourceInfo: Any)(f: (JsonNode) => Any)(implicit
[info]   +    urlCreator: URLCreator,
[info]   +    configurer: OAuthConfiguration): Any = {
[info]      ??? (DefDef.stat:327)

Also long parameter lists hanging to the right are difficult to read on small screens, vertical scrolling is often required.

[SethTisue]

The style guide doesn't aim to resolve all style questions, only questions on which consensus or near-consensus exists.

So I think we could accept this PR if it were modified to offer alternatives, but I don't think it's mergeable to enshrine the style you are recommending here as the style.

[SethTisue]

closing for inactivity. happy to reopen if activity resumes