Bug 130402 – Removing MediaStreamVector typedef

• Component: WebCore Misc.
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Thiago de Barros Lacerda]

As did in r158480 for MediaStreamTrackVector and MediaStreamSourceVector. Those typedefs just compromises the code readability.

[Thiago de Barros Lacerda]

Created attachment 227063 [details]
Patch

[WebKit Commit Bot]

Comment on attachment 227063 [details]
Patch

Clearing flags on attachment: 227063

Committed r165834: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/165834>

[WebKit Commit Bot]

All reviewed patches have been landed.  Closing bug.

[Darin Adler]

Comment on attachment 227063 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=227063&action=review

> Source/WebCore/Modules/mediastream/RTCPeerConnection.cpp:520
> -    for (MediaStreamVector::iterator iter = m_localStreams.begin(); iter != m_localStreams.end(); ++iter) {
> +    for (auto iter = m_localStreams.begin(); iter != m_localStreams.end(); ++iter) {
>          if ((*iter)->id() == streamId)
>              return iter->get();
>      }

When you touch a loop like this one it’s best to make it a modern C++ loop too:

    for (auto& stream : m_localStreams) {
        if (stream->id() == streamId)
            return stream->get();
    }

Isn’t that better?

[Thiago de Barros Lacerda]

(In reply to comment #4)
> (From update of attachment 227063 [details])
> View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=227063&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebCore/Modules/mediastream/RTCPeerConnection.cpp:520
> > -    for (MediaStreamVector::iterator iter = m_localStreams.begin(); iter != m_localStreams.end(); ++iter) {
> > +    for (auto iter = m_localStreams.begin(); iter != m_localStreams.end(); ++iter) {
> >          if ((*iter)->id() == streamId)
> >              return iter->get();
> >      }
> 
> When you touch a loop like this one it’s best to make it a modern C++ loop too:
> 
>     for (auto& stream : m_localStreams) {
>         if (stream->id() == streamId)
>             return stream->get();
>     }
> 
> Isn’t that better?

Indeed Darin, I will do that next time. Thanks