On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Tony Chang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Tony Chang wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Sam Weinig <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If the issue is the syntax for describing flexing, perhaps the spec >>> should be written in a backwards compatible way, that supports both the new >>> syntax and the old syntax, but the underlying implementation can remain. >>> >> >> The new syntax describes a superset of features provided by the old >> syntax. I think it's possible to implement the old flexbox on top of the >> new flexbox implementation and that seems like a worthwhile goal, but it'll >> probably easier to see the similarities for refactoring after the code has >> been written. >> >> If it's a superset then I would much prefer to see the old code >> incrementally enhanced to support the extended features and new syntax, then >> to first rewrite from scratch and merge. Maybe the right step 1 is >> refactoring and cleaning up the old code. Rewriting from scratch throws away >> accumulated knowledge, and in cases where we have to keep the old >> implementation too, bloats the code. >> > > The decision to start from scratch was based on a recommendation by Hyatt > on IRC to just rename the old implementation (to RenderDeprecatedFlexibleBox > or something) and make a new implementation of RenderFlexibleBox. > Hyatt should probably chime in here, but on IRC he seemed to think that the old RenderFlexibleBox was a bad design and needed a complete rewrite anyways. Ojan
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
