[webkit-dev] Bools are strictly worse than enums

[Eric Seidel]

Dave, I'm not sure I understand your exception.  Could you give an example?

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt at apple.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at webkit.org> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me, that using bool types for function arguments is strictly
>> worse than using an enum.  An enum is always clearer and can be easily
>> casted to a bool if needed.
>>
>> doSomething(something, false);
>>
>> Is much less readable than:
>>
>> doSomething(something, AllowNetworkLoads);
>>
>>
>> Do any C++ gurus have further information to add here?  Is my (simple)
>> analysis here incorrect?  If not, seems we should forbid boolean values in
>> multi-argument methods/constructors in our style and add checks to
>> check-webkit-style to prevent further introduction of these confusing
>> callsites.
>>
>> -eric
>>
>
>
> I was under the impression that this was already an encouraged style in
> WebKit code.  At least, I really like that is makes call-sites more
> self-documenting.
>
>
> 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."
>
> dave
> (hyatt at apple.com)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20101203/db45df20/attachment.html>