> On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:16 PM, Filip Pizlo wrote:
>
> That also means not using static, for the same reason. FWIW, I think it’s a
> good idea.
Maybe.
There is definitely no benefit in wrapping a class, structure, or type
definition in an anonymous namespace. My comment was specifically about
That also means not using static, for the same reason. FWIW, I think it’s a
good idea.
-Filip
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
>
> I think it’s also worthwhile to remove the anonymous namespace wrapping each
> of these DestroyFunc structures when renaming them. Generally spe
I agree on that. The Patch on the way as well and I will fix it.
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=180335
Em dom, 3 de dez de 2017 às 18:10, Darin Adler escreveu:
> I think it’s also worthwhile to remove the anonymous namespace wrapping
> each of these DestroyFunc structures when renaming
I think it’s also worthwhile to remove the anonymous namespace wrapping each of
these DestroyFunc structures when renaming them. Generally speaking, anonymous
namespace doesn’t work when compilation units are arbitrary, since they say
“limit this to one compilation unit”. So I’m not sure we shou
Ok.
It's a common pattern to use "struct DestroyFunc {".
I'm going to rename all of them.
Em dom, 3 de dez de 2017 às 14:52, Filip Pizlo escreveu:
> Maybe just give that DestroyFunc a more unique name like
> JSSegmentedVariableObjectDestroyFunc. Cc me on such a patch and I’ll
> happily review
Maybe just give that DestroyFunc a more unique name like
JSSegmentedVariableObjectDestroyFunc. Cc me on such a patch and I’ll happily
review it.
-Filip
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Caio Lima wrote:
>
> Hi guys. I'm working in a Patch that is adding some files to JSC and I faced
> following
6 matches
Mail list logo
