On Jun 18, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rn...@webkit.org> wrote:
> 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. I don't think possible lazy creation is a good reason to decorate the name. Functions should be named for what they do, not their presumed efficiency. I am also not sure we need a style guideline about putting things into variables. If it makes a difference in a hot code path, then sure, but most of the time, the more concise code is better. - Maciej > > - R. Niwa > > _______________________________________________ > webkit-dev mailing list > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org > https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
