<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.webkit.org/" />
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Stop copying author shadow pseudo rules into shadow tree style resolver"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163232#c7">Comment # 7</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Stop copying author shadow pseudo rules into shadow tree style resolver"
href="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163232">bug 163232</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:koivisto@iki.fi" title="Antti Koivisto <koivisto@iki.fi>"> <span class="fn">Antti Koivisto</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre><span class="quote">> What guarantees this is non-null?</span >
The call site tests we are in a shadow tree. Added an assert.
<span class="quote">> What guarantees shadowRoot.host() is non-null?</span >
We should never be resolving style for a disconnected shadow tree.
<span class="quote">> Anders and I would write this in this new coding style:
>
> MatchRequest hostAuthorRequest { &hostAuthorRules,
> matchRequest.includeEmptyRules };
>
> Has the benefit of not looking anything like a function call and another
> benefit is that it won’t do implicit type conversions like silently
> converting an int to a boolean.</span >
I'm not sure I understand the first point. Invoking a constructor is a function call so looking like one doesn't seem so wrong to me.
<span class="quote">> What guarantees ruleSet is non-null?</span >
Call sites assert or set it explicitly.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>