On May 17, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> Hi, I have a basic question. What has been WebKit's stance on the use of the
> explicit keyword (for higher-level objects in particular)? Do we prefer the
> looser API's that conversion by constructor affords, or do we more often
> discourag
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Chris Jerdonek wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
>> I think the best way for us to clarify our guideline for this would be to
>> discuss a few individual cases where we have a non-explicit constructor. We
>> can talk about why they are
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> I think the best way for us to clarify our guideline for this would be to
> discuss a few individual cases where we have a non-explicit constructor. We
> can talk about why they are not explicit and see if we find they are just
> bugs or sho
I think the Google guideline is pretty close to what a WebKit guideline would
be. The explicit keyword should almost always be used when a constructor is
creating an object and not just converting type from one to another. Leaving
out the explicit keyword should be thought of as equivalent to de
My understanding is that we almost always use the explicit keyword
unless we "explicitly" want implicit construction. For example,
AtomicString has a non-explicit constructor that takes a String on
purpose (or at least controlled by NO_IMPLICIT_ATOMICSTRING).
Adam
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:39
Hi, I have a basic question. What has been WebKit's stance on the use of the
explicit keyword (for higher-level objects in particular)? Do we prefer the
looser API's that conversion by constructor affords, or do we more often
discourage relying on conversion by constructor?
For comparison, the G
6 matches
Mail list logo
