Re: Hiding 'new' statements - Good or Evil?

On 11/28/17 10:28 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote: const auto& foo = getFoo(); foo->bar(); // foo is always safe here Sadly not true. Some counterexamples: Foo* getFoo() { return mFoo; // Hey, this is the common case! } const RefPtr& getFoo() { return mFoo; // Can be nulled out by the

Re: Hiding 'new' statements - Good or Evil?

const auto& foo = getFoo(); foo->bar(); // foo is always safe here Use of auto instead of auto& should be less common. I only use it for: Casts: `const auto foo = static_cast(bar);` Or long (but obvious) types I need a value of, usually RefPtrs of long types. Almost every other auto is `const

Intent to implement: Custom Elements

Summary: This is basically an after the fact notification that we're in progress of implementing Custom Elements (both autonomous custom elements and customized built-in elements) and the implementation for old spec, which was never exposed to the web, will be removed. We are close to finishing

Announcing MozillaBuild 3.1.1 Release

Well, that didn't go as planned. Due to a couple regressions from version 3.1, version 3.1.1 has been released to clean up the regressions. Apologies for the delay in getting this out as I know the hg issue in particular has been painful for people hitting it. The two primary changes are: * Fix

Re: Hiding 'new' statements - Good or Evil?

On 11/28/2017 06:33 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 11/27/17 7:45 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: As for the lifetime question, can you elaborate on the scenario you are concerned about. Olli may have a different concern, but I'm thinking something like this: for (auto foo : myFoos) { foo->bar();

Re: Hiding 'new' statements - Good or Evil?

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017, at 12:56 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, smaug wrote: >> > > And auto makes code reading

Performance issue on 57 with some a11y clients

Hi folks, As you may have heard, some users on 57 are experiencing performance problems due to third party clients that are interacting poorly with Firefox accessibility. We have been able to reproduce only one case (Realplayer) and need more. So here’s what we are asking. If you use Windows can

Re: Hiding 'new' statements - Good or Evil?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Xidorn Quan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, smaug wrote: > > > And auto makes code reading harder. It hides important information like > > > lifetime

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

Custom Elements is being tracked separately. Watch for an intent email regarding them soon. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:05 AM wrote: > Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements? > > Thanks > ___ >

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

Is this just shadow dom or there will be also support for custom elements? Thanks ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:21 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > > > On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez > > wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

On 11/28/2017 10:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez > wrote: > > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: > >> This is basically an after the fact

Re: Intent to implement (again): Shadow DOM

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 2:50 PM Emilio Cobos Álvarez wrote: > On 11/27/2017 02:01 PM, James Graham wrote: > > On 27/11/17 12:20, smaug wrote: > >> This is basically an after the fact notification that > >> we're in progress of implementing Shadow DOM again, this time v1[1]. >