On 11/13/2012 01:34 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> Why is "using mozilla::RangedPtr" required; is "RangedPtr" ambiguous?
It's not -- just the increasing concern about using-collisions if we open the
whole mozilla namespace, which we'd rather not do because of the possibility
(actuality, for Rang
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
We ended up removing the nested |using| above and making all SpiderMonkey
headers qualify everything with mozilla::. We use few enough things from
mozilla:: so far that we switched to |using mozilla::RangedPtr| an
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
> We ended up removing the nested |using| above and making all SpiderMonkey
> headers qualify everything with mozilla::. We use few enough things from
> mozilla:: so far that we switched to |using mozilla::RangedPtr| and so on
> in .cpp files a
On 11/12/2012 10:44 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>
>> The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
>> A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
>> adds a symbol to namespace A, an
On 2012-11-12 1:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
adds a symbol to namespace A, and gets an u
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> The scenario I'm concerned with is when a .cpp file does 'using namespace
> A;' and then goes on to define a bunch of its *own* symbols; later someone
> adds a symbol to namespace A, and gets an unexpected break possibly miles
> from their o
On 2012-11-10 12:58 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
What exactly is the benefit here? As far as I know, "using namespace A;
using namespace B;" where both A and B define Foo doesn't actually cause a
compile error unless/until the code actually references "Foo".
The scenario I'm concerned with is
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I challenge your presuppositions. The average file should need no more
> than one or two `using SYMBOL;` lines per header it includes. Maintaining
> this will not be significantly more difficult than maintaining the existing
> lists of head
On 11/9/12 8:03 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I challenge your presuppositions. The average file should need no more
than one or two `using SYMBOL;` lines per header it includes.
That depends on the structure of the code, no?
For example, until we finish moving over all of the DOM to live inside
On 11/9/12 8:11 PM, Benoit Jacob wrote:
The only issue I see is using namespace at file scope in a _header
file_. I would support a coding style rule against that.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/Coding_Style#Namespaces
says:
No "using" statements are allowed in h
2012/11/9 Zack Weinberg :
> On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>>
>> I reviewed a patch today that had:
>>
>> using namespace mozilla;
>> using namespace dom;
>
>
> The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what
> you need.
In a given cpp file (in a single TU), as
On 2012-11-09 10:49 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what
you need.
I really don't think it should. I do not want to see source files full of
difficult-to-maintain and unn
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only what
> you need.
I really don't think it should. I do not want to see source files full of
difficult-to-maintain and unnecessary "using" boilerplate a la Java
"import".
On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
I reviewed a patch today that had:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace dom;
The style guide should forbid `using namespace` altogether. Use only
what you need.
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platfor
On 2012-11-09 3:40 PM, Chris Peterson wrote:
On 11/9/12 11:53 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace mozilla::dom;
The style guidelines recommend against using nested namespaces, so doing
what you suggest would make them self-inconsistent.
But we have some nested n
On 11/9/12 11:53 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace mozilla::dom;
The style guidelines recommend against using nested namespaces, so doing
what you suggest would make them self-inconsistent.
But we have some nested namespaces today, so `using` them like Kyle
su
On 2012-11-09 1:28 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
I reviewed a patch today that had:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace dom;
The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom
namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level
dom namespace. In the re
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:
> On 11/9/12 10:28 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
>
>> I reviewed a patch today that had:
>>
>> using namespace mozilla;
>> using namespace dom;
>>
>> The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom
>> namespaces, but this is
On 11/9/12 10:28 AM, Kyle Huey wrote:
I reviewed a patch today that had:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace dom;
The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom
namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level
dom namespace. In the revi
I reviewed a patch today that had:
using namespace mozilla;
using namespace dom;
The intent is to pull in the contents of both the mozilla and mozilla::dom
namespaces, but this is only clear if you know that there is no top-level
dom namespace. In the review comments I asked the author to write
20 matches
Mail list logo
