[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       webkit-dev
Subject:    Re: [webkit-dev] Null value for QualifiedName
From:       Eric Seidel <eric () webkit ! org>
Date:       2010-08-24 20:28:46
Message-ID: AANLkTikZHfoJvfJtbXvR-imEc5bHj38ukONkVH_vABo9 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

I think this callsite reads better w/o the QualifiedName*, but Darin
is right, that could just be htmlTag or whatever with a comment
explaining.  This site could also crete its own:
static QualifiedName nullName(nullAtom, nullAtom, nullAtom) if it really wanted.

-eric

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Darin Adler <darin@apple.com> wrote:
> While I don’t strongly oppose adding a null value, there are some benefits to not \
> having one. Not having to handle that special case can keep code simpler. And if \
> you don’t have a null value or empty value then you don’t have to answer the \
> question of whether these two are the same thing or not. 
> I don’t think this particular call site cries out for the null value. For example, \
> I think using the QualifiedName* here is fine. And you could also use any qualified \
> name other than scriptTag, styleTag, xmpTag, or textareaTag. For example, you might \
> think it’s logical to use bodyTag or something like that. 
> -- Darin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> webkit-dev mailing list
> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
> 
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]