On 4/28/14, 12:38 AM, Birunthan Mohanathas wrote:
It will fail to compile.
Excellent!
-Boris
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On 4/27/14 9:18 PM, Birunthan Mohanathas wrote:
Bugs 900903 and 900908 introduced variadic variants of
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS, NS_IMPL_QUERY_INTERFACE, NS_IMPL_CYCLE_COLLECTION,
etc. and removed the old numbered macros. So, instead of e.g.
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS2(nsFoo, nsIBar, nsIBaz), simply use
NS_IMPL_
On 28 April 2014 07:29, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 4/28/14, 12:18 AM, Birunthan Mohanathas wrote:
>>
>> Right now, the new macros support up to 50 variadic arguments.
>
>
> If someone uses more than that, will that fail to compile or silently ignore
> the extra args?
It will fail to compile.
_
On 4/28/14, 12:18 AM, Birunthan Mohanathas wrote:
Right now, the new macros support up to 50 variadic arguments.
If someone uses more than that, will that fail to compile or silently
ignore the extra args?
-Boris
P.S. I know, the right answer is "they need fewer interfaces"... ;)
__
Bugs 900903 and 900908 introduced variadic variants of
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS, NS_IMPL_QUERY_INTERFACE, NS_IMPL_CYCLE_COLLECTION,
etc. and removed the old numbered macros. So, instead of e.g.
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS2(nsFoo, nsIBar, nsIBaz), simply use
NS_IMPL_ISUPPORTS(nsFoo, nsIBar, nsIBaz) instead. Right no
Thanks, Brian, looks good!
On 2014-04-23, 8:40 PM, Brian Birtles wrote:
(2014/04/24 6:05), Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Thanks for sending this out, Brian! Can you please be more specific
about which subset of the API surface you're planning to ship?
Hi Ehsan!
As far as implementation goes, I've fi
Note that I filed 1002263 for this.
On 2014-04-27, 7:58 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Sunday 2014-04-27 09:29 -0700, Dave Hylands wrote:
Every time I send an email to dev-platform, I get the following email as a
reply.
Can we get supp...@lativio.com removed from the mailing list?
To answer y
On Sunday 2014-04-27 09:29 -0700, Dave Hylands wrote:
> Every time I send an email to dev-platform, I get the following email as a
> reply.
>
> Can we get supp...@lativio.com removed from the mailing list?
To answer your question in the subject, the moderator of the
(mailman side of) this grou
Every time I send an email to dev-platform, I get the following email as a
reply.
Can we get supp...@lativio.com removed from the mailing list?
Dave Hylands
- Original Message -
From: supp...@lativio.com
To: dhyla...@mozilla.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:15:14 AM
Subject: Th
- Original Message -
> From: "Boris Zbarsky"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 6:03:42 PM
> Subject: Re: OS.File design issue from bug 961080 (making downloads respect
> umask)
> On 4/26/14, 11:32 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > it might be better to just
Hi Zack,
- Original Message -
> From: "Zack Weinberg"
> To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 12:11:23 PM
> Subject: Re: OS.File design issue from bug 961080 (making downloads respect
> umask)
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> On 04/26
On 4/27/14, 10:06 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
maybe we should stop doing that?
The issue is deciding where to put the incoming data. We can't just
buffer it in RAM while the download is proceeding and the user has gone
to lunch without selecting a download location, because in many cases
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/26/2014 09:03 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 4/26/14, 11:32 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> it might be better to just create files in the ultimate target
>> directory if we aren't already.
>
> We create the file before the user has picked the ult
Another rather nice purpose for the s-r flag, in my experience, is exposed
during onboarding of fresh, remote, engineers (like I was ~1 year ago): it
allowed me to get acquainted with the review cycle while working on Good Next
Bugs(tm) that touched intricate parts of the codebase, like DocShell
14 matches
Mail list logo
