On 2014/05/22 11:58:01, adamk wrote:
On 2014/05/22 11:33:25, Yang wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/294943009/diff/50001/src/isolate.cc
> File src/isolate.cc (right):
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/294943009/diff/50001/src/isolate.cc#newcode2294
> src/isolate.cc:2294: goto done;
> On 2014/05/22 11:27:59, Michael Starzinger wrote:
> > Pretty please with a cherry on top, no gotos ... shouldn't a simple
break
of
> the
> > for-loop actually implicitly kick you out of the while-loop as well?
>
> Even nicer could be just a return here. Instead of
incrementing/decrementing
the
> call depth at the start and end, why not use a scope? We even have one,
called
> SuppressMicrotaskExecutionScope. Might be a misnomer here, but a
comment or
two
> should fix that?
Heh, mid-air collision, I was doing that while you sent this.
:)
https://codereview.chromium.org/294943009/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
