-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/35287/#review88428
-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for taking this on Mark!
Would you mind rebasing this chain on current master?


3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp (lines 108 - 113)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35287/#comment140948>

    Not your fault:
    I know the other tests don't use full words for variable names, but would 
you mind switching the variable names to use full words that are more 
meaningful? Thanks! :-)



3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp (lines 110 - 111)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/35287/#comment140949>

    I think we can rewrite this as:
    ```
    EXPECT_EQ("Something", something.getOrElse("Else"));
    ```
    What do you think? 
    The same applies for the test below.


- Joris Van Remoortere


On June 10, 2015, 8:11 a.m., Mark Wang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/35287/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 10, 2015, 8:11 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos and Joris Van Remoortere.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-2800
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2800
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Rename Option<T>::get(const T& _t) to getOrElse() and refactor original 
> functions (stout)
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/option.hpp 
> 8d5217a699a302cc9ebb2aa10d74cced7eb2b3d9 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/osx.hpp 
> c8d30d8c193eb14f7accfde4fe02ce0710cd1817 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/tests/option_tests.cpp 
> f1ae80ab881ccfcefda69d5bfee2d969d171f1b9 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/35287/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark Wang
> 
>

Reply via email to