On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Simon Fraser <simon.fra...@apple.com>wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:11 PM, Darin Adler <da...@apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:05 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote: > > Why don't we call it requireStyleResolver() instead? > > > I’m warming to this idea. Maybe we can use “require” as a term of art, > analogous to the way we use “create”, to mean “create if not already > created”. > > > Since the fact that it returns a reference implies that it must create > something if necessary, the “required” part of the name seems redundant. > Why not just > StyleResolver& styleResolver() > > requireStyleResolver() sounds like it would return a bool. > True. But it's important to differentiate a simple inline accessor and a lazily-create function because it's very easy to write code like: if (styleResolver().x()) styleResolver().y(); and incur two function calls when we could have done StyleResolver& resolver = styleResolver(); if (resolver.x()) resolver.y(); instead. On the other hand, I've started to think that maybe we can simply forbid the former style altogether in the style guide so that we'll never have to think about whether a given function is inline or not. - R. Niwa
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev