On 2014/11/21 13:40:51, rmcilroy wrote:
On 2014/11/21 12:34:02, Andrew Hayden wrote:
> I'm not too worried about the approach; it's not pretty, but GYP is
obtuse
with
> things like this. More reasons to get the GN migration done, IMO, not
that
this
> should be an excuse for poor code quality.
>
> Anyhow: Two thoughts.
> 1. It would be nice to have a comment in each of your condition blocks
that
> succinctly tells the reader that the only difference is the addition of
the
> random-seed args. That way you don't have to sit there and carefully
scrutinize
> every option to see if they're really the same.
>
> 2. You might conceivably shrink the redundant bits a little by setting
up
> variables to hold the common args (as a list variable). You should be
able
to
> use a list inside a list, so the args to the action should be
theoretically
able
> to handle a variable (boilerplate_args or something) as well as your
custom
> random-seed arg.
>
> #1 won't be necessary if you do #2. But I can live with #1, and it's
probably
> faster.
As discussed offline, it would be better if you could avoid having to
redefine
the variables, and only redefine the 'action' in each of the condition /
target_condition blocks. This may not be possible, but what should be
possible
is to simply reuse the same code as was there before in each of the blocks
rather than splitting out the v8_random_seed into two different action
blocks.
Ross: does it look better now? :)
Andrew: because this version is much more compact I judged the comments
would be "overkill". If you disagree I'll add them :). Thanks!
https://codereview.chromium.org/741223002/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
