Again, I think enum is better. I am just saying that method(true /* xxx */) is not as bad as method(true, true, true, false);
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: > I think /* explanation of what I'm doing */ is strictly worse than > readableCode(UnderstandableParameter). > I'd rather have readable code than comments attempting to excuse unreadable > code. > -eric > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Gomes <toniki...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I do not think that XXX:repaint(true /* immediate */) is so bad >> either, if I understood Hyatt's comment correctly, and I agree with him on >> it. >> >> Having a enum is ideal, but no need for it to be mandatory, as other >> also pointed out. >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: >> > I'm not sure we have any examples of bool passing like that in real >> > code. >> > The case I'm concerned about is not one of single argument bools: >> > doSoemthing(bool) >> > but more of multi-argument functions: >> > doSomething(something, bool) >> > I'm trying to write a rule which can be easily automated by >> > check-webkit-style. >> > It's possible we could tighten the rule further to only allow >> > single-argument bools where "set" is in the function name. >> > It sounds like most folks are in agreement. We should add a rule like >> > this >> > to check-webkit-style. Sounds like Dave Levin may already have >> > something >> > partial in the works. >> > -eric >> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Hyatt <hy...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> 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." >> >> >> >> That rule makes sense to me. >> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Eric Seidel <e...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dave, I'm not sure I understand your exception. Could you give an >> >>> example? >> >> >> >> I think what he means is that >> >> bool doSomething(); >> >> void doSomethingElse(bool); >> >> and the only case we always call doSomethingElse with a return value of >> >> some function or with a variable: >> >> doSomethingElse(doSomething()); >> >> doSomethingElse(shouldNotDoSomethingElse); >> >> etc... >> >> and we never call it with raw true/false: >> >> doSomethingElse(true) >> >> doSomethingElse(false) >> >> - Ryosuke >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> webkit-dev mailing list >> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > webkit-dev mailing list >> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> --Antonio Gomes > > -- --Antonio Gomes _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev