On 1/11/14, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Darin Adler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 11, 2014, at 3:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Ideally it should be USE(THE_SPECIFIC_FRAMEWORK_IN_QUESTION). I would >>> guess that much of PLATFORM(MAC) that is valid for both Mac and iOS >>> should actually be USE(FOUNDATION). PLATFORM really shouldn't be used for >>> things other than terminal platform names. USE(COCOA) would be an ok >>> stopgap if sorting down to more specific conditionals delays this cleanup >>> too much. >> >> Sorting down to specific conditionals will definitely delay the cleanup >> too much! >> >> Thinking about USE(FOUNDATION) and looking at code it’s clear that the Mac >> and iOS ports have a lot more in common than Foundation. I saw that >> looking at PLATFORM(MAC) code snippets. > > I saw that too after looking at more. > >> But as long as we’re going to have something incorrect as a first >> approximation, I don’t think that incorrect uses of USE(FOUNDATION) are >> significantly worse than incorrect uses of USE(COCOA). If long term there >> is not supposed to be such a thing as USE(COCOA), then I would hate to add >> it and then have to remove it later. >> >> It remains clear to me that a valuable and quick first step is to >> mechanically change PLATFORM(MAC) to BAR, and I am OK with BAR being >> USE(FOUNDATION), USE(COCOA), or PLATFORM(COCOA). >> >> I am sure there is a lot of easy refinement we can do immediately after. >> For example, we can change BAR && !PLATFORM(IOS) back to PLATFORM(MAC), if >> we can’t find an even better conditional. Maybe our first step can even be >> clever and not ever change such things to BAR, as suggested by Dan. >> >> I’d like to play the numbers game, so if our best guess is that most >> PLATFORM(MAC) should be USE(FOUNDATION), I would choose that for BAR. > > After thinking about it a bit - USE(COCOA) (or for that matter even > PLATFORM(COCOA)) might be better as a first cut. Since it's not supposed to > exist at all long term, it makes for an easy number to drive to zero. > USE(FOUNDATION) will mix both correct and incorrect uses so it will be > harder to drive the mistaken applications to zero. > > Regards, > Maciej > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev >
I'm new here, so sorry if I’m intruding since I don’t have much of a stake in this outcome, but USE(COCOA) then seems to imply to me that you need to also have a USE(COCOATOUCH). It so, then maybe it should be AppKit vs. UIKit instead for more clarity. There is another potential case where you have an Obj-C framework environment that is not Apple’s. I’ll cite GNUStep and Apportable as two cases. The former provides a Cocoa (AppKit) compatible implementation but tends to run on Linux or Windows. The latter provides a UIKit compatible implementation and tends to run on Android. This asks the question, do you really mean Mac vs. iOS, or AppKit vs. UIKit, or something else? Thanks, Eric -- Beginning iPhone Games Development http://playcontrol.net/iphonegamebook/ _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
