Bug 173273 - Modernize UserScript.h
Summary: Modernize UserScript.h
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebKit
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New Bugs (show other bugs)
Version: WebKit Nightly Build
Hardware: Unspecified Unspecified
: P2 Normal
Assignee: Alex Christensen
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-06-12 14:00 PDT by Alex Christensen
Modified: 2017-06-14 11:13 PDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Patch (13.85 KB, patch)
2017-06-12 14:04 PDT, Alex Christensen 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch (13.87 KB, patch)
2017-06-12 14:30 PDT, Alex Christensen 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Patch (13.83 KB, patch)
2017-06-12 15:19 PDT, Alex Christensen 		no flags Details | Formatted Diff | Diff
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alex Christensen 2017-06-12 14:00:55 PDT 
Modernize UserScript.h
Comment 1 Alex Christensen 2017-06-12 14:04:36 PDT 
Created attachment 312692 [details]
Patch
Comment 2 Alex Christensen 2017-06-12 14:30:07 PDT 
Created attachment 312696 [details]
Patch
Comment 3 Alex Christensen 2017-06-12 15:19:34 PDT 
Created attachment 312708 [details]
Patch
Comment 4 Alex Christensen 2017-06-12 15:38:21 PDT 
https://trac.webkit.org/r218146
Comment 5 Darin Adler 2017-06-14 07:35:08 PDT 
Comment on attachment 312708 [details]
Patch

View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=312708&action=review

> Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:35
>  class UserScript {

This seems like a struct, not a class. All it has is the constructor and getter functions for all data members. That’s exactly what a const struct is like.

> Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:38
> +    UserScript() { }

We could write this instead, which I prefer.

    UserScript() = default;

> Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:39
> +    ~UserScript() { }

This should be omitted. This is what the compiler will do if you don’t define a destructor.

> Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:59
> +    template<class Encoder> void encode(Encoder&) const;
> +    template<class Decoder> static bool decode(Decoder&, UserScript&);

We normally prefer typename rather than class for the type arguments.

Why do these functions need to be members? They can be written entirely using public interface.
Comment 6 Alex Christensen 2017-06-14 11:13:42 PDT 
(In reply to Darin Adler from comment #5)
> Comment on attachment 312708 [details]
> Patch
> 
> View in context:
> https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=312708&action=review
> 
> > Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:35
> >  class UserScript {
> 
> This seems like a struct, not a class. All it has is the constructor and
> getter functions for all data members. That’s exactly what a const struct is
> like.
> 
Yep, could be done.

> > Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:38
> > +    UserScript() { }
> 
> We could write this instead, which I prefer.
> 
>     UserScript() = default;
> 
> > Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:39
> > +    ~UserScript() { }
> 
> This should be omitted. This is what the compiler will do if you don’t
> define a destructor.
> 
I agree with these pieces of feedback, and I did them in earlier patches, but EWS/El Capitan's compilers failed to link WebKit2 for some reason.

> > Source/WebCore/page/UserScript.h:59
> > +    template<class Encoder> void encode(Encoder&) const;
> > +    template<class Decoder> static bool decode(Decoder&, UserScript&);
> 
> We normally prefer typename rather than class for the type arguments.
> 
> Why do these functions need to be members? They can be written entirely
> using public interface.
> 
Indeed