On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Peter Kasting wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <m...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> 1) We definitely have consensus to fix the broken non-logically-const > accessors by making them non-const; consensus on also adding const accessors > is less clear. > > > > There are a surprising number of places that actually do const > traversals. Simply making all these accessors non-const will require > removing a lot of valid const usage from the existing code. I'm really > uncomfortable with that. > > I thought you did it already locally. You mentioned that you decided for > many member functions that the right thing was to remove const. I suggested > you land those changes first, before making the other changes. > > Are we talking about the same thing? Maybe you think Maciej is asking for > something he’s not. Maybe I got confused. Some accessors cannot be const at all (IMO), like the ones that update layout before returning the desired value. Other accessors, e.g. parentNode(), don't themselves do anything non-const and so they could theoretically be valid as const and non-const versions. What I thought Maciej was saying was that we should remove "const" on all the existing accessors, in both categories, which sounded different than what you were saying (which I read as "remove const on the accessors in the first category"). I'm perfectly happy removing "const" from accessors in the first category. I can post a change that does that before going any further. PK
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev