On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: > >>> Cut down on confusing uses of "Object" and "Imp". >> >> Should we add the JS prefix to these, too? > > I'm not sure. > > If we want to add a JS prefix to all these names, then there'd be even > more names to change because I left some closely related names alone, > and they'd need the JS prefixes. > > A while back, I added JS to "Value" and "Object" because even with a > namespace, the names "Value" and "Object" didn't seem clearly enough > to be "JavaScript language value". I think that applies to many of > these other types too. It's hard to say. Maybe we do indeed want JS > prefixes on all of these.
I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem like very generic names otherwise. Perhaps we could just always reference these with namespace-qualified names, if the namespace prefix is short enough. So JSC::Object instead of JSObject. But I am not sure I like that. Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our namespace from KJS to JSC. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
