Bug 168833 – Move Arg::Type and Arg::Width out into the B3 namespace, since they are general concepts

• Component: JavaScriptCore
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Filip Pizlo]

Patch forthcoming.

[Filip Pizlo]

Created attachment 302685 [details]
the patch

[Saam Barati]

Comment on attachment 302685 [details]
the patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=302685&action=review

r=me

> Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:22
> +        I kept both as non-enum classes because I think that we've learned that terse compiler
> +        code is a good thing. I don't want to say Bank::GP when I can say GP. With Width, the
> +        argument is even stronger, since you cannot say Width::8 but you can say Width8.

I don't always agree with this. But in this situation, after reading this patch, I agree it's easier to read. I'm not in love with calling it "bank", but I'm not sure what else to call it, and this is consistent with uses of "bank" elsewhere.
The reason I don't like it, for example, is the function name "acceptsBank" means nothing to me unless I've read the code.

I wonder if we can still by the increased type safety of the enum class without having to prefix with the enum name. Is there a way to use "using" or somthing similar on an enum class?

[Filip Pizlo]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 302685 [details]
> the patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=302685&action=review
> 
> r=me
> 
> > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:22
> > +        I kept both as non-enum classes because I think that we've learned that terse compiler
> > +        code is a good thing. I don't want to say Bank::GP when I can say GP. With Width, the
> > +        argument is even stronger, since you cannot say Width::8 but you can say Width8.
> 
> I don't always agree with this. But in this situation, after reading this
> patch, I agree it's easier to read. I'm not in love with calling it "bank",
> but I'm not sure what else to call it, and this is consistent with uses of
> "bank" elsewhere.
> The reason I don't like it, for example, is the function name "acceptsBank"
> means nothing to me unless I've read the code.

Is the problem here the name of Bank or the fact that it's not an enum class?

> 
> I wonder if we can still by the increased type safety of the enum class
> without having to prefix with the enum name. Is there a way to use "using"
> or somthing similar on an enum class?

[Saam Barati]

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Comment on attachment 302685 [details]
> > the patch
> > 
> > View in context:
> > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=302685&action=review
> > 
> > r=me
> > 
> > > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:22
> > > +        I kept both as non-enum classes because I think that we've learned that terse compiler
> > > +        code is a good thing. I don't want to say Bank::GP when I can say GP. With Width, the
> > > +        argument is even stronger, since you cannot say Width::8 but you can say Width8.
> > 
> > I don't always agree with this. But in this situation, after reading this
> > patch, I agree it's easier to read. I'm not in love with calling it "bank",
> > but I'm not sure what else to call it, and this is consistent with uses of
> > "bank" elsewhere.
> > The reason I don't like it, for example, is the function name "acceptsBank"
> > means nothing to me unless I've read the code.
> 
> Is the problem here the name of Bank or the fact that it's not an enum class?
The name of bank. Again, I don't have a better suggestion ATM.

> > 
> > I wonder if we can still by the increased type safety of the enum class
> > without having to prefix with the enum name. Is there a way to use "using"
> > or somthing similar on an enum class?

[Filip Pizlo]

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > Comment on attachment 302685 [details]
> > > the patch
> > > 
> > > View in context:
> > > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=302685&action=review
> > > 
> > > r=me
> > > 
> > > > Source/JavaScriptCore/ChangeLog:22
> > > > +        I kept both as non-enum classes because I think that we've learned that terse compiler
> > > > +        code is a good thing. I don't want to say Bank::GP when I can say GP. With Width, the
> > > > +        argument is even stronger, since you cannot say Width::8 but you can say Width8.
> > > 
> > > I don't always agree with this. But in this situation, after reading this
> > > patch, I agree it's easier to read. I'm not in love with calling it "bank",
> > > but I'm not sure what else to call it, and this is consistent with uses of
> > > "bank" elsewhere.
> > > The reason I don't like it, for example, is the function name "acceptsBank"
> > > means nothing to me unless I've read the code.
> > 
> > Is the problem here the name of Bank or the fact that it's not an enum class?
> The name of bank. Again, I don't have a better suggestion ATM.

OK, we're on the same page. :-)

[Filip Pizlo]

Landed in https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/212970