On Mar 26, 2013, at 1:40 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Benjamin Poulain <benja...@webkit.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Dirk Pranke <dpra...@chromium.org> wrote > If we have consensus that we should just switch to paths relative to Source > (or maybe a couple different options), that would be (IMO) a big win. It > sounds like Daniel & co. have already done the big bang conversion. > > I think using full path would be a serious hit regarding hackability. > > I would rather spend some time tweaking my compiler to cache each directory > content than waste time finding where is every single header I need to > include. > > > Interesting. I have the exact opposite experience, having to paw around to > figure out where "Font.h" actually lives rather than just seeing > "WebCore/platform/graphics/Font.h". > > At any rate, to be clear, I would be in favor of that change but I'm not > expecting it to happen :). I'm with Dirk on this. Full path would help hackability for me. I don't use an IDE, so I'll be typing more. But I spend more time reading code than typing code. Also we have a lot of stupid in header file naming right now. For example the DFG calls the JSC::DFG::Node header "DFGNode.h", and puts it in JavaScriptCore/dfg/DFGNode.h. So we duplicate the namespacing of JSC::DFG::Node in both the filename and the directory name. Ridiculous! If we had a discipline to always include using paths relative to Source, then we could just rename it to JavaScriptCore/dfg/Node.h. That would make me happy. -F > > -- Dirk > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
