On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 12:47 AM, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan.akhg...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 2013-08-02 5:21 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > >> 3. How should we handle bridge support for standardized features not yet >>> universally-implemented? >>> >>> >> Generally, I would much rather we implement std::whatever ourselves than >> implement mozilla::Whatever, all other things being equal. >> > > Yes, but it's still not clear to me why you prefer this. 1. It avoids a phase of mass rewrites s/mozilla:Whatever/std::whatever/. (See below). 2. It is reasonable to expect that std::whatever works as the C++ standard says it should. It isn't reasonable to expect mozilla::Whatever to work exactly like std::whatever. And, often, mozilla::Whatever isn't actually the same as std::whatever. > > This saves us >> from the massive rewrites later to s/mozilla::Whatever/std::**whatever/; >> while such rewrites are generally a net win, they are still disruptive >> enough to warrant trying to avoid them when possible. >> > > Disruptive in what sense? I recently did two of these kinds of > conversions and nobody complained. You have to rebase all your patches in your patch queue and/or run scripts on your patches (that, IIRC, don't run on windows because mozilla-build doesn't have "sed -i"). I'm not complaining about the conversions you've done, because they are net wins. But, it's still less disruptive to avoid unnecessary rounds of rewrites when possible, and s/mozilla::Whatever/std::whatever/ seems unnecessary to me when we could have just named mozilla::Whatever std::whatever to start with. Cheers, Brian _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
