On Jul 24, 2009, at 7:23 AM, Brian Barnes wrote:
This:
2) There's not currently a performance penalty for re-checking the
property name in the catchall getter that you currently have
available, because it gets called without JavaScriptCore doing a
property lookup first.
Pretty much
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
Do you have specific areas you're concerned about that we can be on
the lookout for?
I tried to think this through, but only had a few minutes free:
A minor concern is that Frame has a
On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
In JavaScriptCore, some structures have integer members that must be
32bits in size, regardless of processor type. In those places,
int32_t
and uint32_t are useful.
Less clear to me is whether clients of such structures should also
use
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
I think that long-term we need to have a class to represent all the state of
a Frame that changes whenever the document changes. Right now the closest we
have to that is DocumentLoader, but it doesn't really hold all of
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related
patches being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these are a
good idea and that any further reformatting only patches be rejected.
Historically we have avoided purely style related changes as they
impact our
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related
patches being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these are
a good idea and that any further reformatting only patches be
rejected.
Historically we have avoided
On 25-Jul-09, at 6:46 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:08 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related
patches being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these
are a good idea and that any further reformatting only
Am 25.07.2009 um 10:08 schrieb Oliver Hunt:
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related
patches being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these are
a good idea and that any further reformatting only patches be
rejected.
Hm, I don't share your opinion here.
On Jul 25, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related
patches being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these are
a good idea and that any further reformatting only patches be
rejected.
I completely disagree. I see
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 4:39 PM, David Hyatt hy...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 25, 2009, at 3:08 AM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
I've just noticed that there have been a few purely style related patches
being landed in the tree recently, I don't believe these are a good idea and
that any further
Geoffrey == Geoffrey Garen gga...@apple.com writes:
Geoffrey So, I guess the question is, if you have a quantity that
Geoffrey must be 32 bits, is it useful or harmful to specify by
Geoffrey using int32_t instead of int?
Do note that, pedantically speaking, int32_t is not required to be 32
bits
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
Do note that, pedantically speaking, int32_t is not required to be 32
bits long, just long enough to store any value which could be stored in
a 32 bit integer. Ie, it is perfectly acceptable for an arch to use a
64 bit
12 matches
Mail list logo
