On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> What about renaming the function? EmptyStringHACK() or something? It's not a hack. It's a perfectly legitimate thing to use, and not something we're going to get rid of, unlike ToWStringHack(). Darin suggested we could make these return const pointers instead of const refs, so callers would need to explicitly deref, to make things look uglier. I'm not a big fan of this. If someone does misuse one of these, it won't corrupt memory, so it's not catastrophe. Removing all the wrong uses and adding clear comments about the right uses, here and in the code, seems sufficient to me. PK
-- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
