I didn't think that there was a reason to be less verbose. Especially with the new side-effect free generator, there would be a reason to have block-scoped code generation comments for those blocks of code, so the fact that the entire function is a block makes sense to me, and it makes it easier for me to find the comment if they are not so terse.
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Millikin <[email protected]>wrote: > Does it need to be a block comment (closed by "]")? They're not nested. > > Maybe this could be less verbose? The names of the classes > "FullCodeGenerator", "FastCodeGenerator", "CodeGenerator" convey the same > information. > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> LGTM. >> >> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/652110 >> >> -- >> v8-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev >> > > -- > v8-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev -- William Hesse Software Engineer [email protected] Google Denmark ApS Frederiksborggade 20B, 1 sal 1360 København K Denmark CVR nr. 28 86 69 84 If you received this communication by mistake, please don't forward it to anyone else (it may contain confidential or privileged information), please erase all copies of it, including all attachments, and please let the sender know it went to the wrong person. Thanks. -- v8-dev mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
