[webkit-dev] Bools are strictly worse than enums

[Eric Seidel]

I think /* explanation of what I'm doing */ is strictly worse than
readableCode(UnderstandableParameter).

I'd rather have readable code than comments attempting to excuse unreadable
code.

-eric

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Antonio Gomes <tonikitoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not think that XXX:repaint(true /* immediate */) is so bad
> either, if I understood Hyatt's comment correctly, and I agree with him on
> it.
>
> Having a enum is ideal, but no need for it to be mandatory, as other
> also pointed out.
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at webkit.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure we have any examples of bool passing like that in real code.
> > The case I'm concerned about is not one of single argument bools:
> > doSoemthing(bool)
> > but more of multi-argument functions:
> > doSomething(something, bool)
> > I'm trying to write a rule which can be easily automated by
> > check-webkit-style.
> > It's possible we could tighten the rule further to only allow
> > single-argument bools where "set" is in the function name.
> > It sounds like most folks are in agreement.  We should add a rule like
> this
> > to check-webkit-style.  Sounds like Dave Levin may already have something
> > partial in the works.
> > -eric
> > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa at webkit.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt at apple.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 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."
> >>
> >> That rule makes sense to me.
> >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Eric Seidel <eric at webkit.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dave, I'm not sure I understand your exception.  Could you give an
> >>> example?
> >>
> >> I think what he means is that
> >> bool doSomething();
> >> void doSomethingElse(bool);
> >> and the only case we always call doSomethingElse with a return value of
> >> some function or with a variable:
> >> doSomethingElse(doSomething());
> >> doSomethingElse(shouldNotDoSomethingElse);
> >> etc...
> >> and we never call it with raw true/false:
> >> doSomethingElse(true)
> >> doSomethingElse(false)
> >> - Ryosuke
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> webkit-dev mailing list
> >> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > webkit-dev mailing list
> > webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --Antonio Gomes
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20101203/187eb850/attachment.html>