RESOLVED FIXED 157765
Don't include CSSParser.h from other headers 
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=157765
Summary Don't include CSSParser.h from other headers
Alex Christensen
Reported 2016-05-16 16:00:40 PDT
Don't include CSSParser.h from other headers
Attachments
Patch (6.21 KB, patch)
2016-05-16 16:02 PDT, Alex Christensen 		zalan: review+
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Alex Christensen
Comment 1 2016-05-16 16:02:29 PDT
Created attachment 279059 [details] Patch
zalan
Comment 2 2016-05-16 16:04:30 PDT
Comment on attachment 279059 [details] Patch lovely
Alex Christensen
Comment 3 2016-05-16 16:10:27 PDT
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/200977
Darin Adler
Comment 4 2016-05-23 13:23:04 PDT
Comment on attachment 279059 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=279059&action=review > Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.h:107 > +typedef Vector<CSSProperty, 256> ParsedPropertyVector; This could be using instead of typedef. Why did we chose to change style? I thought that we were preferring using instead of typedef now in almost all cases.
Alex Christensen
Comment 5 2016-05-23 13:25:04 PDT
(In reply to comment #4) > Comment on attachment 279059 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=279059&action=review > > > Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.h:107 > > +typedef Vector<CSSProperty, 256> ParsedPropertyVector; > > This could be using instead of typedef. Why did we chose to change style? I > thought that we were preferring using instead of typedef now in almost all > cases. I was not aware of this. We have a lot of typedefs, and I hadn't seen many usings, so I changed it. Is there any benefit either way?
Darin Adler
Comment 6 2016-05-23 17:53:45 PDT
Comment on attachment 279059 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=279059&action=review >>> Source/WebCore/css/CSSProperty.h:107 >>> +typedef Vector<CSSProperty, 256> ParsedPropertyVector; >> >> This could be using instead of typedef. Why did we chose to change style? I thought that we were preferring using instead of typedef now in almost all cases. > > I was not aware of this. We have a lot of typedefs, and I hadn't seen many usings, so I changed it. Is there any benefit either way? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10747810/what-is-the-difference-between-typedef-and-using-in-c11
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.