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
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
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
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 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 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 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.
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 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
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 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 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 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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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 7:05 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 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 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
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
