mjs at apple.com
Sat Jun 14 22:43:20 PDT 2008
On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Darin Adler wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2008, at 10:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I would prefer if we keep a JS prefix only on the objects that seem
>> like very generic names otherwise.
> Makes sense.
> Given that rule of thumb, what do you think of these:
> "GetterSetterImp" => "JSGetterSetter",
Not sure this needs the prefix - this probably would not come up in
> "NumberImp" => "JSNumberCell",
Doesn't really need the prefix (Cell won't conflict) but it would be
good to keep in sync with JSNumber so yes.
> "StringImp" => "JSString",
> "ArrayInstance" => "JSArray",
> "FunctionImp" => "JSFunction",
Both Array and Function seem like they could have lots of uses.
> Do all of those deserve the JS prefix? Maybe the first three and not
> the last two?
>> Another thought that came up is that perhaps we should change our
>> namespace from KJS to JSC.
> I like the idea. But I'm not crazy about the three WebKit namespaces
> being WTF, JSC, and WebCore. One of these things is not like the
Should the WebCore namespace be WC? That somehow seems less tasty than
More information about the webkit-dev