Refactor location and names of gc visit functions. #810
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This serves two purposes. 1) Improve naming consistency (follow the format TYPENAME::gcHandler) 2) In the source file, the visit function declaration is closer to the fields of the objects. If a field is added, hopefully it will be easier to remember to update the GC visit function.
kmod
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 7, 2015
Refactor location and names of gc visit functions.
|
cool :) yeah those had gotten pretty inconsistent. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Make them static functions on the type that the visit function is associated to whenever possible. Makes it more consistent and less likely to forget to update the visit function if we change the type's fields.