On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Darin Adler wrote: > On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem >> like very generic names otherwise. > > Makes sense. > > Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these: > > "GetterSetterImp" => "JSGetterSetter",
Not sure this needs the prefix - this probably would not come up in other contexts. > > "NumberImp" => "JSNumberCell", Doesn't really need the prefix (Cell won't conflict) but it would be good to keep in sync with JSNumber so yes. > "StringImp" => "JSString", Yes. > "ArrayInstance" => "JSArray", > "FunctionImp" => "JSFunction", Both Array and Function seem like they could have lots of uses. > > > Do all of those deserve the JS prefix? Maybe the first three and not > the last two? > >> Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our >> namespace from KJS to JSC. > > I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces > being WTF, JSC, and WebCore. One of these things is not like the > others! Should the WebCore namespace be WC? That somehow seems less tasty than the others. Regards, Maciej _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
