On Jun 16, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces
>> being WTF, JSC, and WebCore. One of these things is not like the
>> others!
>
> How about "JSCore?" We already use "JS" as an abbreviation for
> "JavaScript" all over
> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces
> being WTF, JSC, and WebCore. One of these things is not like the
> others!
How about "JSCore?" We already use "JS" as an abbreviation for
"JavaScript" all over the place, so "JSCore" seems like a natural
shortening of "
I completed all the renaming mentioned in my original message today.
-- Darin
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
On Jun 15, 2008, at 8:51 AM, David Hyatt wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>>
Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our
namespace from KJS to JSC.
>>>
>>> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces
>>>
Am Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:51:53 -0500
schrieb David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our
> >>> namespace from KJS to JSC.
> >>
> >> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy abou
On Jun 15, 2008, at 12:43 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>> Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our
>>> namespace from KJS to JSC.
>>
>> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces
>> being WTF, JSC, and WebCore. One of these things is not like
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>> I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem
>> like very generic names otherwise.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these:
>
>
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem
> like very generic names otherwise.
Makes sense.
Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these:
"GetterSetterImp" => "JSGetterSetter",
"NumberImp" =>
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>
>>> Cut down on confusing uses of "Object" and "Imp".
>>
>> Should we add the JS prefix to these, too?
>
> I'm not sure.
>
> If we want to add a JS prefix to all these names, then there'd be ev
On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>> Cut down on confusing uses of "Object" and "Imp".
>
> Should we add the JS prefix to these, too?
I'm not sure.
If we want to add a JS prefix to all these names, then there'd be even
more names to change because I left some closely related n
On Jun 13, 2008, at 4:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Should we also rename other files that use the old
> lowercase_underscore convention instead of the new MixedCase
> convention?
I do want to do those renames too.
One reason I didn't propose them yet is that many of those files
contai
These renames all sound good to me.
On Jun 13, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> Change some filenames and header guards:
>
> "property_slot" => "PropertySlot",
> "scope_chain" => "ScopeChain",
> "scope_chain_mark" => "ScopeChainMark",
>
> "KJS_PROPERTY_SLOT_H" => "Property
These look good to me.
> Cut down on confusing uses of "Object" and "Imp".
Should we add the JS prefix to these, too?
Geoff
___
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
I have some suggested name changes for JavaScriptCore code. I'll do
these with the do-webcore-rename script.
Use JS prefix and simpler names for basic types, to complement JSValue
and JSObject.
"GetterSetterImp" => "JSGetterSetter",
"NumberImp" => "JSNumberCell",
"StringImp" =>
14 matches
Mail list logo
