Re: [webkit-dev] renaming some WebCore, too

2008-06-14 Thread Adam Roben
On Jun 13, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Darin Adler wrote: Streamline the names of functions to get to parts of the Frame object (as in the tree() function to get to the frame tree): animationController = animation, scriptProxy = script, selectionController = selection, I'd suggest adding

Re: [webkit-dev] WinLauncher crash on Windows XP

2008-06-14 Thread Brent Fulgham
On Jun 13, 2008, at 1:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will try to build WebKit using cURL but it seems that if I build with the cURL support I need to build with Cairo too since all the options I saw in the code involve Cairo as well. Is there a way to build with the cURL support in

Re: [webkit-dev] renaming some things in JavaScriptCore

2008-06-14 Thread Darin Adler
On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: Cut down on confusing uses of Object and Imp. Should we add the JS prefix to these, too? I'm not sure. If we want to add a JS prefix to all these names, then there'd be even more names to change because I left some closely related names

Re: [webkit-dev] renaming some things in JavaScriptCore

2008-06-14 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Darin Adler wrote: On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: Cut down on confusing uses of Object and Imp. Should we add the JS prefix to these, too? I'm not sure. If we want to add a JS prefix to all these names, then there'd be even more names

Re: [webkit-dev] renaming some things in JavaScriptCore

2008-06-14 Thread Darin Adler
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem like very generic names otherwise. Makes sense. Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these: GetterSetterImp = JSGetterSetter, NumberImp =

Re: [webkit-dev] renaming some things in JavaScriptCore

2008-06-14 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Darin Adler wrote: On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem like very generic names otherwise. Makes sense. Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these: