Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-17 Thread Saam barati
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: > >>> e.g. I think this is great: >>> auto ptr = std::make_unique(bar); >>> Proposed rule: if the type is obvious because it's on the line, then auto >>> is good. >>> Similarly: >>> auto i = static_cast(j); >>> auto foo = make_foo(); >>> aut

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Geoffrey Garen
>> My take-away from this discussion so far is that there is actually very >> little consensus on usage of auto, which means there’s probably very little >> room for actual style guideline rules. >> >> I think there are two very limited rules that are probably not objectionable >> to anybody. >

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Geoffrey Garen
>> e.g. I think this is great: >> auto ptr = std::make_unique(bar); >> Proposed rule: if the type is obvious because it's on the line, then auto is >> good. >> Similarly: >> auto i = static_cast(j); >> auto foo = make_foo(); >> auto bar = something.get_bar(); // Sometimes, "bar" is obvious. > I'm

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
12.01.2017, 19:54, "Brady Eidson" : > My take-away from this discussion so far is that there is actually very > little consensus on usage of auto, which means there’s probably very little > room for actual style guideline rules. > > I think there are two very limited rules that are probably not

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Filip Pizlo
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 08:54, Brady Eidson wrote: > > My take-away from this discussion so far is that there is actually very > little consensus on usage of auto, which means there’s probably very little > room for actual style guideline rules. > > I think there are two very limited rules tha

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
12.01.2017, 19:54, "Brady Eidson" : > My take-away from this discussion so far is that there is actually very > little consensus on usage of auto, which means there’s probably very little > room for actual style guideline rules. > > I think there are two very limited rules that are probably not

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Brady Eidson
My take-away from this discussion so far is that there is actually very little consensus on usage of auto, which means there’s probably very little room for actual style guideline rules. I think there are two very limited rules that are probably not objectionable to anybody. 1 - If you are usi

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-12 Thread Xabier Rodríguez Calvar
Hi, O Mér, 11-01-2017 ás 11:15 -0800, JF Bastien escribiu: > e.g. I think this is great: > auto ptr = std::make_unique(bar); > Proposed rule: if the type is obvious because it's on the line, then > auto is good. > Similarly: > auto i = static_cast(j); > auto foo = make_foo(); > auto bar =

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread saam barati
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 11:15 AM, JF Bastien wrote: > > Would it be helpful to focus on small well-defined cases where auto makes > sense, and progressively grow that list as we see fit? > > > e.g. I think this is great: > auto ptr = std::make_unique(bar); > Proposed rule: if the type is obvio

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Michael Catanzaro
Perhaps we need to be especially careful about replacing Refs and RefPtrs with auto. It was mentioned that using typedefs to hide pointer types is often the source of serious bugs. A similar rule could apply to using auto with smart pointers. On Wed, 2017-01-11 at 09:43 -0800, Darin Adler wrote: >

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread JF Bastien
Would it be helpful to focus on small well-defined cases where auto makes sense, and progressively grow that list as we see fit? e.g. I think this is great: auto ptr = std::make_unique(bar); Proposed rule: if the type is obvious because it's on the line, then auto is good. Similarly: auto i =

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Konstantin Tokarev
11.01.2017, 21:55, "Geoffrey Garen" : > I’m open to auto, but skeptical. > > (1) Research-ability. I read a lot of code that is new to me, that I have > never written. I find type statements to be useful as documentation for where > to look for more information about how data structures and alg

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Geoffrey Garen
I’m open to auto, but skeptical. (1) Research-ability. I read a lot of code that is new to me, that I have never written. I find type statements to be useful as documentation for where to look for more information about how data structures and algorithms relate to each other. Traversing a tree

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Filip Pizlo
I'm only arguing for why using auto would be bad in the code snippet that we were talking about. My views regarding auto in other code are not strong. I only object to using auto when it is dropping useful information. -Filip > On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:15 AM, Darin Adler wrote: > > OK, you d

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Darin Adler
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 9:41 AM, Alexey Proskuryakov wrote: > > In a way, these are read-time assertions. Exactly. A type name is a read-time assertion of the specific type that a variable has and “auto” is a read-time assertion that the type of the variable is the same as the type of the expres

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Alexey Proskuryakov
There are two considerations which make me skeptical that auto is a good thing. 1. There are many smart pointer types in C++, and ignoring pointer types is very error prone. Others have mentioned std::optional, and mistakes being made with RefPtrs. I even saw a case where a review comment that

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Darin Adler
OK, you didn’t convince me but I can see that your opinions here are strongly held! — Darin ___ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-11 Thread Filip Pizlo
On Jan 10, 2017, at 23:49, Darin Adler wrote: >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote: >> >>while (Arg src = worklist.pop()) { >>HashMap>::iterator iter = >> mapping.find(src); >>if (iter == mapping.end()) { >>// With

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Darin Adler
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote: > > while (Arg src = worklist.pop()) { > HashMap>::iterator iter = > mapping.find(src); > if (iter == mapping.end()) { > // With a shift it's possible that we previously built > th

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Alex Christensen
>> I’d love to see examples where using auto substantially hurts readability so >> we could debate them. I once saw a RefPtr changed to auto in some generated code where it was unclear what the return type was. For at least one generated instance the return type was Something* that needed a re

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Filip Pizlo
Brady asked: > Have you identified any situation where explicitly calling out the type in a > range-based for loop has been better than using the proper form of auto? > Have you identified a situation where explicitly calling out a nasty > templated type, like in my example, added to readabilit

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Chris Dumez
I usually like using auto / auto* as much as possible. The one exception where I have found using auto confusing was for functions returning an std::optional. E.g. auto value = maximum(); if (!value) return; I find that the check is confusing because it returns early if value is 0 in the

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Darin Adler
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > >> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: >> >> auto countOfThing = getNumberOfThings(); >> ASSERT(countOfThing >= 0); // Can’t tell by reading whether the ASSERT is >> assured at compile time if countOfThing is unsigned > > I und

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread JF Bastien
> > auto thingLength = getLengthOfThing(); > IntSize size(thingLength, 2); // Can’t tell by reading if thingLength is > LayoutUnit or float and thus truncated here. > The same is true for: int thingLength = getLengthOfThing(); ___ webkit-dev mailing list

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Darin Adler
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:46 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: > > auto countOfThing = getNumberOfThings(); > ASSERT(countOfThing >= 0); // Can’t tell by reading whether the ASSERT is > assured at compile time if countOfThing is unsigned I understand wanting to know, but I am not certain this is a bad thi

Re: [webkit-dev] [webkit-reviewers] usage of auto

2017-01-10 Thread Simon Fraser
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > > This kind of discussion should be on webkit-dev, not webkit-reviewers. While > the reviewers may have more standing to decide about such things, we normally > want to discuss them in the open. Agreed. Moving there. > If you don’t like “aut