On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with Get in the WebIDL
bindings. So readonly attribute long foo becomes int32_t GetFoo() in
the C++.
Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular,
On 8/30/12 4:16 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
It certainly looks nicer, but I'm not a big fan of complicating the
rules for assembling the C++ signature from the WebIDL. XPIDL's
consistency here, IMO, saves time when implementing an interface: you
can focus on the actual implementation, rather than the
On 8/30/12 8:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What would
readonly attribute long? bin;
compile into? If it compiles into something called GetBin then we'd
have a nice consistency that any getters for nullable types are named
GetX and any getters for non-nullable types are named X.
I was going
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 8/30/12 8:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What would
readonly attribute long? bin;
compile into? If it compiles into something called GetBin then we'd
have a nice consistency that any getters for nullable types are
Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with Get in the
WebIDL bindings. So readonly attribute long foo becomes int32_t
GetFoo() in the C++.
Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
cases in which:
1) The getter is infallible.
2) The return value
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with Get in the WebIDL
bindings. So readonly attribute long foo becomes int32_t GetFoo() in
the C++.
Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular,
6 matches
Mail list logo
