Re: Coding style 🙄 : `int` vs `intX_t` vs `unsigned/uintX_t`

On 7/4/19 10:11 PM, Gerald Squelart wrote: - I found plenty of `unsigned`s around, more than `uint32_t`s. How many are in code that predates the ability to use uint32_t, though? - Our latest coding style [1] points at Google's, which has a section about Integer Types [3], and the basic gist

Re: Coding style 🙄 : `int` vs `intX_t` vs `unsigned/uintX_t`

The Google style sounds pretty good to me. On 04/07/2019 07:11, Gerald Squelart wrote: > Recently I coded something with a not-very-important slow-changing > rarely-used positive number: `unsigned mGeneration;` > My reviewer commented: "Please use a type with an explicit size, such as > uint32_t

Coding style 🙄 : `int` vs `intX_t` vs `unsigned/uintX_t`

Recently I coded something with a not-very-important slow-changing rarely-used positive number: `unsigned mGeneration;` My reviewer commented: "Please use a type with an explicit size, such as uint32_t. (General mozilla style; you don't see a bare "unsigned" around much)" I had never heard of th

Re: Using Google styling of #define guards

On Wednesday, July 3, 2019 at 2:27:30 PM UTC-7, Chris Peterson wrote: > On 7/3/2019 11:37 AM, Bryce Seager van Dyk wrote: > > I wanted to clarify, and discuss if needed, our styling of #define guards. > > My understanding is that we are now using Google's style in regards to > > #define guards >

Re: Using Google styling of #define guards

On 7/3/2019 11:37 AM, Bryce Seager van Dyk wrote: I wanted to clarify, and discuss if needed, our styling of #define guards. My understanding is that we are now using Google's style in regards to #define guards (https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#The__define_Guard). I believe th

Re: Changes to “ExposureGuidelines” (Intent to *)

I think "Intent to prototype" is a good clarity improvement, thanks! On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:48 AM Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Hi all, > > In consultation with others I have made some adjustments to > https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines. > > “Intent to implement” has been renamed to “In

Using Google styling of #define guards

Hi all, I wanted to clarify, and discuss if needed, our styling of #define guards. My understanding is that we are now using Google's style in regards to #define guards (https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#The__define_Guard). I believe this would mean for `dom/media/foo/bar.h` I w

Changes to “ExposureGuidelines” (Intent to *)

Hi all, In consultation with others I have made some adjustments to https://wiki.mozilla.org/ExposureGuidelines. “Intent to implement” has been renamed to “Intent to prototype” to signify more clearly that the change does not affect the shipping product and has no direct relation to standardizati

Re: Intent to implement and ship: Limit the length of Referer header to 4k

Thanks, that's a good point indeed. I prefer adding a console warning in this case. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:23 PM Panos Astithas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 6:16 AM Thomas Nguyen wrote: > >> DevTools bug: No >> > > Wouldn't it be helpful to indicate such truncation in the console (as a >