Ehsan Akhgari writes:
> On 2015-05-07 5:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
>> Ehsan Akhgari writes:
>>
This seems similar to the compiler warning situation.
Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the
code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence
On 2015-05-07 5:53 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari writes:
This seems similar to the compiler warning situation.
Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the
code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence
the warning. Instead the warning is ther
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:53:54AM +1200, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
> Ehsan Akhgari writes:
>
> >> This seems similar to the compiler warning situation.
> >> Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the
> >> code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence
> >> t
Ehsan Akhgari writes:
>> This seems similar to the compiler warning situation.
>> Usually at least, I don't think we should automatically modify the
>> code in line with how the compiler reads the code just to silence
>> the warning. Instead the warning is there to indicate that a
>> programmer n
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> Which leaves us with a conundrum regarding your plea for more notice:
> it's a bit hard to seriously consider complaints that "at some future
> date yet to be determined" is "too soon."
>
My apologies. My reading of the announcements indicate
On 05/01/2015 01:50 PM, oli...@omattos.com wrote:
When plans like this aren't rolled out across all browsers together, users inevitably
come across a broken site and say "Firefox works with this site, but Safari gives a
warning. Safari must be broken". Better security is punished.
Having thi
> On May 6, 2015, at 22:51, Eric Shepherd wrote:
>
> would have been nice to have more notice
The plan that has been outlined involves a staged approach, with new
JavaScript features being withheld after some date, followed by a
period during which select older JavaScript features are gradually
A request from the docs team: once the final decisions are made, please
either let us know what those decisions are (use our doc request form:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/form.doc) or update the coding style guide
yourselves (
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_guide/Coding
On 2015-05-05 2:51 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
Seeing this a touch late, commenting on things not noted yet.
On 04/27/2015 12:48 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
I think we should change it to require the usage of exactly one of these
keywords per *overridden* function: virtual, override, and final. Here
a
On 2015-04-29 9:16 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
and this one isn't final, but we could make it final if the tu will be
built into libxul (because then devirtualization is fine)
http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/base/nsIDocument.h#1287
I'm not sure why that function is virtual. If
On 2015-04-29 9:17 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
Ehsan Akhgari writes:
I think there's a typo of some sort in the question, but if you
meant "every overriding function must be marked with override",
then yes, that is the change I'm proposing, but the good news is
that you can now run clang-tidy on
On 2015-05-07 7:07 AM, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
From what I gather, ServiceWorkers are now The Right Thing To Do if a
webpage needs some off main thread pre/post processing on server-sent
data. This got me thinking that pre/post processing is exactly what
AdBlock Plus is doing.
So, I won
On 06/05/2015 23:47, Doug Turner wrote:
> One thing I should point out is that binary components in B2G are NOT
> user installable. Instead, binaries components are used by companies
> building FirefoxOS devices.
>
> For example, Qualcomm has some special implementation for Geolocation
> and the r
From what I gather, ServiceWorkers are now The Right Thing To Do if a
webpage needs some off main thread pre/post processing on server-sent
data. This got me thinking that pre/post processing is exactly what
AdBlock Plus is doing.
So, I wonder: could AdBlock Plus be reimplemented using a slightly
On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 10:29:29 PM UTC+2, Nicholas Alexander wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 10:36 PM, wrote:
>
> > We would like some feedback on build flags for the Web Speech API
> > installation.
> >
> > More specifically, we are planning to land an initial version of the Web
> > Speech
15 matches
Mail list logo
