Spin off incidental changes from DM CL (22839016).

Spin off incidental changes from DM CL (22839016).

BUG=

Committed: http://code.google.com/p/skia/source/detail?r=11752

[mtklein, 2013-10-11 17:56:43]

Realized this would be the first thing I'd ask for if I were reviewing my own
CL. :)

[epoger, 2013-10-11 18:45:19]

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h
File gm/gm_expectations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h#newcode52
gm/gm_expectations.h:52: explicit GmResultDigest(const SkBitmap &bitmap);
Why make these explicit-only?

[mtklein, 2013-10-11 19:05:20]

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h
File gm/gm_expectations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h#newcode52
gm/gm_expectations.h:52: explicit GmResultDigest(const SkBitmap &bitmap);
On 2013/10/11 18:45:19, epoger wrote:
> Why make these explicit-only?
Readability, though I notice Skia style guide doesn't care about this explicitly
(ahem).  Non-explicit single argument constructors can be really spooky.  Being
able to, say, pass false where you'd expect an Expectations is pretty weird. 
It's just a habit I've gotten into any time I see a single argument constructor.
 Generally, if some code stops compiling when you add an explicit like this,
that code was probably too subtle to begin with.

[epoger, 2013-10-11 19:11:18]

LGTM

On 2013/10/11 19:05:20, mtklein wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h
> File gm/gm_expectations.h (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h#newcode52
> gm/gm_expectations.h:52: explicit GmResultDigest(const SkBitmap &bitmap);
> On 2013/10/11 18:45:19, epoger wrote:
> > Why make these explicit-only?
> Readability, though I notice Skia style guide doesn't care about this
explicitly
> (ahem).  Non-explicit single argument constructors can be really spooky. 
Being
> able to, say, pass false where you'd expect an Expectations is pretty weird. 
> It's just a habit I've gotten into any time I see a single argument
constructor.
>  Generally, if some code stops compiling when you add an explicit like this,
> that code was probably too subtle to begin with.

Agreed all around.  I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some particular
issue going on here.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-11 19:14:33]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/mtklein@google.com/27023004/1

[bsalomon, 2013-10-11 19:50:53]

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h
File gm/gm_expectations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h#newcode52
gm/gm_expectations.h:52: explicit GmResultDigest(const SkBitmap &bitmap);
On 2013/10/11 19:05:20, mtklein wrote:
> On 2013/10/11 18:45:19, epoger wrote:
> > Why make these explicit-only?
> Readability, though I notice Skia style guide doesn't care about this
explicitly
> (ahem).  Non-explicit single argument constructors can be really spooky. 
Being
> able to, say, pass false where you'd expect an Expectations is pretty weird. 
> It's just a habit I've gotten into any time I see a single argument
constructor.
>  Generally, if some code stops compiling when you add an explicit like this,
> that code was probably too subtle to begin with.


Update the style guide! We definitely prefer to use explicit and most instances
where we don't are violations of the undocumented preference.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-12 02:05:19]

List of reviewers changed. bsalomon@google.com did a drive-by without LGTM'ing!

[bsalomon, 2013-10-14 13:05:00]

On 2013/10/12 02:05:19, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> List of reviewers changed. mailto:bsalomon@google.com did a drive-by without
LGTM'ing!
??? lgtm

[mtklein, 2013-10-14 14:15:01]

On 2013/10/14 13:05:00, bsalomon wrote:
> On 2013/10/12 02:05:19, I haz the power (commit-bot) wrote:
> > List of reviewers changed. mailto:bsalomon@google.com did a drive-by without
> LGTM'ing!
> ??? lgtm

Just for good measure, I'm Mike Klein and I approve this changelist.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-14 14:15:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://skia-tree-status.appspot.com/cq/mtklein@google.com/27023004/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-10-14 14:15:30]

Change committed as 11752

[mtklein, 2013-10-14 15:16:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h
File gm/gm_expectations.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/27023004/diff/1/gm/gm_expectations.h#newcode52
gm/gm_expectations.h:52: explicit GmResultDigest(const SkBitmap &bitmap);
On 2013/10/11 19:50:54, bsalomon wrote:
> On 2013/10/11 19:05:20, mtklein wrote:
> > On 2013/10/11 18:45:19, epoger wrote:
> > > Why make these explicit-only?
> > Readability, though I notice Skia style guide doesn't care about this
> explicitly
> > (ahem).  Non-explicit single argument constructors can be really spooky. 
> Being
> > able to, say, pass false where you'd expect an Expectations is pretty weird.

> > It's just a habit I've gotten into any time I see a single argument
> constructor.
> >  Generally, if some code stops compiling when you add an explicit like this,
> > that code was probably too subtle to begin with.
> 
> 
> Update the style guide! We definitely prefer to use explicit and most
instances
> where we don't are violations of the undocumented preference.

Done.