On 8/30/13 4:16 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 08/26/2013 10:30 AM, Steve Fink wrote:
- JS::Handle<JS::Value> is indeed ugly. But you can't compare to
HandleValue; it'd still be JS::HandleValue. It sounds like people aren't
crazy about 'using namespace JS' or 'using JS::Value', so it's probably
"JS::Handle<JS::Value> vs JS::HandleValue" or "Handle<JS::Value> vs
HandleValue". A difference, but not a huge one.
Why exactly are people unwilling to use |using JS::Value|?
It's too generic a name. Especially for headers.
Offhand, we have at least two other classes named Value, in different
namespaces, in our codebase.
Would nsStyleAnimation.cpp still compile if Element.h had "using
JS::Value" for the functions it declares that take that type?
-Boris
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-js-engine-internals mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-js-engine-internals
