Re: Representing a pointer to static in XPConnected JS?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: >> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> Is it feasible (with reasonably low effort) to introduce a new

Re: Representing a pointer to static in XPConnected JS?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> Is it feasible (with reasonably low effort) to introduce a new XPIDL >> type that is a pointer to a non-refcounted immutable static object in >>

Re: Representing a pointer to static in XPConnected JS?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Is it feasible (with reasonably low effort) to introduce a new XPIDL > type that is a pointer to a non-refcounted immutable static object in > C++ and still gets bridged to JS? You can certainly have static objects with

Re: Representing a pointer to static in XPConnected JS?

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote: > Is it feasible (with reasonably low effort) to introduce a new XPIDL > type that is a pointer to a non-refcounted immutable static object in > C++ and still gets bridged to JS? My question was underspecified. At

Representing a pointer to static in XPConnected JS?

Our codebase has the conceptual design flaw of representing character encodings as nsACStrings holding the name of the encoding instead of having a type-safe representation. This causes ambiguity between strings that are external protocol text designating an encoding ("label" in spec speak; many

Re: CodeCoverage Monthly Update

On 2017-05-03 8:44 PM, Kyle Lahnakoski wrote: * Daily coverage reports on coveralls.io [1] and on codecov.io[2]. Which do you like? Does coveralls.io have a top-down coverage view like codecov.io? That view seems more useful for both people that want a global view and developers that