On 2014/11/21 20:36:08, baixo1 wrote:
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? :)
Looks much better to me know, thanks. lgtm
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.
