On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 4:39 PM, R Kent James <k...@caspia.com> wrote:
> On 8/21/2016 9:14 PM, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > I strongly encourage people to do likewise on > > any IDL files with which they are familiar. Adding appropriate checks > isn't > > always easy > > Exactly, and I hope that you and others restrain your exuberance a > little bit for this reason. A warning would be one thing, but a hard > failure that forces developers to drop what they are doing and think > hard about an appropriate check is just having you set YOUR priorities > for people rather than letting people do what might be much more > important work. > > There's lots of legacy code around that may or may not be worth the > effort to think hard about such failures. This is really better suited > for a static checker that can make a list of problems, which list can be > managed appropriately for priority, rather than a hard error that forces > us to drop everything. > I don't quite follow the objection here. Anybody who adds such an annotation needs to get the tree green before they land the annotation. Developers writing new code that ignores the nsresult will get instant feedback (by way of try failure) that the developer of the API thinks the nsresult needs to be checked. This doesn't seem like an undue burden, and enforced-by-default assertions are critical to code hygiene and quality. If your concern is the way this API change may break Thunderbird-only consumers of shared XPCOM APIs, that's related to Thunderbird being a non-Tier-1 platform, and pretty orthogonal to the specific change that Nick made. bholley > :rkent > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
