On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 8/30/12 8:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> What would
>>
>>readonly attribute long? bin;
>>
>> compile into? If it compiles into something called GetBin then we'd
>> have a nice consistency that any getters for nullable types are nam
On 8/30/12 8:26 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
What would
readonly attribute long? bin;
compile into? If it compiles into something called GetBin then we'd
have a nice consistency that any getters for nullable types are named
GetX and any getters for non-nullable types are named X.
I was going t
On 8/30/12 4:16 AM, Ms2ger wrote:
It certainly looks nicer, but I'm not a big fan of complicating the
rules for assembling the C++ signature from the WebIDL. XPIDL's
consistency here, IMO, saves time when implementing an interface: you
can focus on the actual implementation, rather than the bindi
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with "Get" in the WebIDL
> bindings. So "readonly attribute long foo" becomes "int32_t GetFoo()" in
> the C++.
>
> Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
> ca
On 08/29/2012 10:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with "Get" in the
WebIDL bindings. So "readonly attribute long foo" becomes "int32_t
GetFoo()" in the C++.
Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
cases in which:
1)
On 12-08-29 4:32 PM, Kyle Huey wrote:
Thoughts?
Sounds great!
Sounds lovely!
Ehsan
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Right now, attribute getters always get prefixed with "Get" in the WebIDL
> bindings. So "readonly attribute long foo" becomes "int32_t GetFoo()" in
> the C++.
>
> Would it make sense to drop the Get in certain cases? In particular, in
> c
7 matches
Mail list logo
