I was looking at clang-tidy and include-what-you-need support in CMake. Clang
currently won’t compile WebKit on Windows but I was going to look into that as
well so those tools could end up running.
Happy to provide some patches if it bears fruit.
From: webkit-dev [mailto:webkit-dev-boun...@lis
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:00 PM, JF Bastien wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here's some comments in the other direction:
>>
>> - If there are times we recommend x != 0 instead of !x, it should maybe be
>> based on whether the c
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>
> Here's some comments in the other direction:
>
> - If there are times we recommend x != 0 instead of !x, it should maybe be
> based on whether the condition is better expressed as "not zero" or "false".
> In the numTestsForEqualityC
I think we should definitely keep !pointerValue instead of pointerValue ==
nullptr for brevity and it makes sense to think “there’s not a pointer” when
there is a pointer to null. I appreciate the reminder that pointers and
integers are the same thing at the assembly level when I write !integer
I think allowing both forms is worse than mandating one form. It's true that in
different situations one or the other may read better, but it's distracting to
have differences that are matters of author taste rather than conveying
meaningful information. "This is a numeric check, not a boolean
Here's some comments in the other direction:
- If there are times we recommend x != 0 instead of !x, it should maybe be
based on whether the condition is better expressed as "not zero" or "false". In
the numTestsForEqualityComparison, that's clearly a "not zero" check given the
naming of the v
Hi Mike,
Thanks for the information.
It is really great to see Safari be integrated in the bots :)
https://cs.chromium.org/chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/w3c/wpt_github.py
seems
like a really good potential candidate for WPT upstream.
y
Le ven. 28 avr. 2017 à 08:25, Mi
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 8:10 AM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
>
> Tests for numeric values where 0 indicates falsiness or emptiness should also
> use if (x) / if (!x).
>
>If (!collection.size())
>return;
I think if (collection.isEmpty()) looks even better :)
--
Chris Dumez
_
Hi Youenn. My name is Mike, and I've been working with Google for the past 4
months or so to improve various aspects of the Web Platform Tests
project (more
on that here [1]).
> The only constraint I know of is that the test does not give flaky
tests from
> WPT Chrome/Firefox bots.
The full
> but == should be used for testing things where 0 is just another number, like
> indexes:
>
> if (index == 0)
>…
The index case is especially annoying because we use -1 to indicate notFound,
so !index means “the first valid index” rather than “no index”. It’s pretty odd
to think of false
This is a good change as long as we are just relaxing the rule rather than
mandating ==. I think ! makes a lot of sense when testing for emptiness:
if (!container.size())
...
if (!count)
...
but == should be used for testing things where 0 is just another number,
like indexes:
if (index =
Is there any opposition to relaxing this rule? Speak now or forever hold your
piece! (not really but I would be curious to hear opposition).
Cheers,
Keith
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 10:32 PM, Carlos Garcia Campos
> wrote:
>
> El jue, 27-04-2017 a las 16:06 -0700, JF Bastien escribió:
>> Hello C++
12 matches
Mail list logo