On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Gabor Krizsanits <gkrizsan...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> The priority is to automatically rewrite our source with a unified style. >> foo -> aFoo is reasonably safe, whereas aFoo->foo is not, at least with >> the >> current tools. So we either need to combine the rewrite tools with static >> analysis, or just go with aFoo. >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > > +1 for consistency. Any volunteers who is willing to get rid of aFoo > EVERYWHERE > and someone else who is willing to review that work? If not then we should > do it > the other way around. > At the risk of mostly repeating myself, I want to emphasize once more that: (1) We have already made the decision (in other threads) that consistency trumps everything else. (2) We will not get consistency on this issue without an automated tool. (3) We do not, at present, have an automated tool that will safely take us from aFoo -> foo, but we do have the reverse. It seems like the most viable approach to leveling the playing field in (3) is to have somebody spend the time to (a) get -Wshadow working, and (b) commit to fixing all the new shadowing issues generating by an automated aFoo -> foo conversions. Until we have a volunteer to do that in the near term, switching aFoo -> foo basically isn't on the table. I think this issue needs to be discussed before making any more stylistic arguments in favor of abolishing aFoo. bholley _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
