Lets bike shed!
For some time, functions with names like fooIfExists and ensureFoo have been
bothering me. I find both names kind of opaque and unpleasant. Here’s an
example:
StyleResolver* styleResolverIfExists();
StyleResolver* ensureStyleResolver()
What do you think of these names i
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> What do you think of these names instead?
>
> StyleResolver* optionalStyleResolver();
> StyleResolver& requiredStyleResolver();
+1, much clearer and the pointer vs reference makes it even more so.
Perhaps enough so that the required pr
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> Lets bike shed!
>
> For some time, functions with names like fooIfExists and ensureFoo have
> been bothering me. I find both names kind of opaque and unpleasant. Here’s
> an example:
>
> StyleResolver* styleResolverIfExists();
> StyleR
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> requiredStyleResolver sounds as if it's a special (required) type of a style
> resolver as opposed to the caller requiring it.
That is true.
> Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead?
Functions with return values don’t read well w
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead?
I’m warming to this idea. Maybe we can use “require” as a term of art,
analogous to the way we use “create”, to mean “create if not already created”.
-- Darin
___
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead?
>
> I’m warming to this idea. Maybe we can use “require” as a term of art,
> analogous to the way we use “create”, to mean “create if no
If the semantic is essentially that of a getter that just happens to lazily
create what it gets on demand, then I don't think "require" or "required" is
needed. It can just be named as a getter. If the side effect is very important
and especially if clients ever call the function only for its si
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
> Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead?
>
>
> I’m warming to this idea. Maybe we can use “require” as a term of art,
> anal
I find ‘requireStyleResolver()’ a little confusing. My first expectation is
often that a method is an imperative command on the receiver, so I first read
'requireStyleResolver()’ as mandating that the document now requires a
StyleResolver, rather than referring to the need of the caller.
In a
On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>>>
Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead?
>>>
>>> I’m warm
For me optional seems very misleading and generally different prefixes
suggests that those objects are not the same.
Maybe IfExists does not sound nicely but at least it's clear. I would
choose to have a pointer version with IfExists and a reference version
which is a noun, like:
StyleResolver
What about?
StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
StyleResolver& styleResolver()
— Timothy Hatcher
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
> For me optional seems very misleading and generally different prefixes
> suggests that those objects are not the same.
> Maybe IfExists do
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> What about?
>
> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
+1 to these two.
-Kling AKA the guy who named the methods we’re bike shedding about. :|___
webkit-dev mailin
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Emil A Eklund wrote:
> +1, much clearer and the pointer vs reference makes it even more so.
> Perhaps enough so that the required prefix could be dropped:
>
> StyleResolver* optionalStyleResolver();
> StyleResolver& styleResolver();
I love this!
On Jun 18, 2013, at
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
>
> What about?
>
> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
>
>
>
This doesn't make sense since calling styleResolver() again won't create a
new one so it's
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Elliott Sprehn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Andreas Kling wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
>
>> What about?
>>
>> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
>> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
>
>
> This doesn't make sense
On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> What about?
>
> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
I like it.
>
> — Timothy Hatcher
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Balazs Kelemen wrote:
>
>> For me optional seems very misleading and general
Sent from my PDP-11
On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
>
>> What about?
>>
>> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
>> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
>
> I like it.
>
>>
>> — Timothy Hatcher
>>
>>
>> On Jun 19,
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> >
> >> What about?
> >>
> >> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
> >> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
> >
> > I like it.
On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
> >
> >> What about?
> >>
> >> StyleResolver* existingStyleResolver()
>
On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:39 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Dan Bernstein wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:37 PM, Timothy Hatcher wrote:
>> >
>> >
On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Brady Eidson wrote:
>
> On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
>
>> I concur. Maybe
>> StyleResolver* styleResolverIfExists()
>> StyleResolver& styleResolver()
>> ?
>
> I concur with this.
>
> For this entire discussion, this is where I was hoping it wa
On Jul 2, 2013, at 17:06, "Maciej Stachowiak"
mailto:m...@apple.com>> wrote:
On Jul 1, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Brady Eidson
mailto:beid...@apple.com>> wrote:
On Jul 1, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Ryosuke Niwa
mailto:rn...@webkit.org>> wrote:
I concur. Maybe
StyleResolver* styleResolverIfExists()
StyleReso
I guess we never remembered to update our style guideline back in 2013.
I've uploaded a patch to do this:
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194930
- R. Niwa
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/l
For those who joined webkit-dev after June 2013, see
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-June/thread.html#25056
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:54 PM Ryosuke Niwa wrote:
> I guess we never remembered to update our style guideline back in 2013.
>
> I've uploaded a patch to do this:
> htt
25 matches
Mail list logo
