Re: C++ method definition comments
I find them extremely useful, too (as in "removing them would make my life miserable in quite a few bugs"). I have no problem with putting them on a separate line. Cheers, David On 26/01/2019 15:19, Jonathan Watt wrote: > Personally I find them useful. Putting them on a separate line seems > reasonable > to me. > > Jonathan > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: C++ method definition comments
Personally I find them useful. Putting them on a separate line seems reasonable
to me.
Jonathan
On 26/01/2019 04:49, Ryan Hunt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Quick C++ style question.
>
> A common pattern in Gecko is for method definitions to have a comment with the
> 'static' or 'virtual' qualification.
>
> Before the reformat, the comment would be on it's own separate line [1]. Now
> it's on the main line of the definition [2].
>
> For example:
>
> /* static */ void
> Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
> vs.
>
> /* static */ void Foo::Bar() {
> ...
> }
>
> Personally I think this now takes too much horizontal space from the main
> definition, and would prefer it to be either on its own line or just removed.
>
> Does anyone have an opinion on whether we still want these comments? And if so
> whether it makes sense to move them back to their own line.
>
> (My ulterior motive is that sublime text's indexer started failing to find
> these definitions after the reformat, but that should be fixed regardless)
>
> If you're interested in what removing these would entail, I wrote a regex to
> make the change [3].
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
> [1]
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/0348d472115d/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1759
> [2]
> https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/e4b9b1084292/layout/generic/nsFrame.cpp#l1756
> [3] https://hg.mozilla.org/try/rev/31ab3e466b6f15dcdbb1aee47edabc7c358b86f2
>
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: New and improved "about:config" for Firefox Desktop
On 1/26/2019 10:09 AM, khagar...@gmail.com wrote: Does it take into account that the sorting is preserved between about:config calls? No, but 0.4% is still very low. We could imagine that a lot of people keep the table sorted by type at all times, or that only a few people do or even know that they can sort, depending on where our confirmation bias stands. We're aware of this, and this is why this data point is definitely not the only element that will influence the direction here. Also, the list in about:support isn't complete Sure, we're aware of this too. After this page has been made the default, please follow up in bug 1502867 if you find yourself in a future situation where not having the filter, and the limits of "about:support", cause an issue. We're not interested in past examples at this stage. Even if we end up implementing the filter, this use case collection period will be very useful to see if there is a better way to solve people's needs. Cheers, Paolo ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: New and improved "about:config" for Firefox Desktop
On Friday, January 25, 2019 at 11:37:14 PM UTC+1, Paolo Amadini wrote: > On 1/25/2019 10:39 AM, Axel Hecht wrote: > > filter [...] by modified > > This is bug 1502867, it is something we've considered but I'm a bit > conflicted as it's only really used on 0.4% of page views and we have a > better section dedicated to that use case in "about:support". Does it take into account that the sorting is preserved between about:config calls? Also, the list in about:support isn't complete (that's why it's called IMPORTANT modified preferences and not simply modified preferences) and it's not editable so I really wouldn't call it even remotely better. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
