I'm not sure we have any examples of bool passing like that in real code. The case I'm concerned about is not one of single argument bools:
doSoemthing(bool) but more of multi-argument functions: doSomething(something, bool) I'm trying to write a rule which can be easily automated by check-webkit-style. It's possible we could tighten the rule further to only allow single-argument bools where "set" is in the function name. It sounds like most folks are in agreement. We should add a rule like this to check-webkit-style. Sounds like Dave Levin may already have something partial in the works. -eric On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Hyatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The only exception I would make to this rule is if all the call sites use >> variables and never pass in raw true or false. In that case there's no loss >> of readability, and whether you use an enum vs. a bool is irrelevant. >> >> I think in general the rule should be "Keep your call sites readable, and >> convert to enums if you find that the call sites are becoming inscrutable." >> > > That rule makes sense to me. > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Eric Seidel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dave, I'm not sure I understand your exception. Could you give an example? > > > I think what he means is that > bool doSomething(); > void doSomethingElse(bool); > > and the only case we always call doSomethingElse with a return value of > some function or with a variable: > doSomethingElse(doSomething()); > doSomethingElse(shouldNotDoSomethingElse); > etc... > > and we never call it with raw true/false: > doSomethingElse(true) > doSomethingElse(false) > > - Ryosuke > > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
