Dave, I'm not sure I understand your exception. Could you give an example?
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Hyatt <hy...@apple.com> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: > >> It seems to me, that using bool types for function arguments is strictly >> worse than using an enum. An enum is always clearer and can be easily >> casted to a bool if needed. >> >> doSomething(something, false); >> >> Is much less readable than: >> >> doSomething(something, AllowNetworkLoads); >> >> >> Do any C++ gurus have further information to add here? Is my (simple) >> analysis here incorrect? If not, seems we should forbid boolean values in >> multi-argument methods/constructors in our style and add checks to >> check-webkit-style to prevent further introduction of these confusing >> callsites. >> >> -eric >> > > > I was under the impression that this was already an encouraged style in > WebKit code. At least, I really like that is makes call-sites more > self-documenting. > > > The only exception I would make to this rule is if all the call sites use > variables and never pass in raw true or false. In that case there's no loss > of readability, and whether you use an enum vs. a bool is irrelevant. > > I think in general the rule should be "Keep your call sites readable, and > convert to enums if you find that the call sites are becoming inscrutable." > > dave > (hy...@apple.com) > >
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
