Think implicit promotion is a good idea?

Think implicit promotion is a good idea?

Things like foo.multiply(Sk4f(t,t,t,t)) can just be foo.multiply(t).

BUG=skia:

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/2719552fb1469b9697a3ee8b15a537044fa6dd96

[mtklein_C, 2015-02-26 19:31:40]

mtklein@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ reed@google.com

[reed2, 2015-02-26 19:54:40]

reed@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ bsalomon@google.com, reed@chromium.org

[reed2, 2015-02-26 19:54:40]

I think that is very clear / guessable. I also think it matches the syntax in
GLSL, but brian can confirm that.

lgtm

[mtklein, 2015-02-26 19:58:39]

On 2015/02/26 19:54:40, reed2 wrote:
> I think that is very clear / guessable. I also think it matches the syntax in
> GLSL, but brian can confirm that.
> 
> lgtm

As far as I understand it, the equivalent of GLSL would be to still require you
to write
  foo.multiply(Sk4f(t))
where this lets you drop the Sk4f(), promoting implicitly.

Still, I think it's clear too, and so guessable you don't even think about it
when you read something like the test,
  ASSERT_EQ(Sk4f(2,4,6,8), Sk4f(1,2,3,4).multiply(2.0f));

[bsalomon, 2015-02-26 20:07:42]

On 2015/02/26 19:58:39, mtklein wrote:
> On 2015/02/26 19:54:40, reed2 wrote:
> > I think that is very clear / guessable. I also think it matches the syntax
in
> > GLSL, but brian can confirm that.
> > 
> > lgtm
> 
> As far as I understand it, the equivalent of GLSL would be to still require
you
> to write
>   foo.multiply(Sk4f(t))
> where this lets you drop the Sk4f(), promoting implicitly.

Right, glsl requires the explicit constructor.

> 
> Still, I think it's clear too, and so guessable you don't even think about it
> when you read something like the test,
>   ASSERT_EQ(Sk4f(2,4,6,8), Sk4f(1,2,3,4).multiply(2.0f));

[mtklein, 2015-02-26 20:10:29]

mtklein@google.com changed reviewers:
+ mtklein@google.com

[mtklein, 2015-02-26 20:10:29]

Righto.  Going to land this with the backup plan of reverting the constructor to
explicit if we find ourselves getting confused.

[mtklein, 2015-02-26 20:10:32]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@google.com

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 20:11:20]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/960773005/1

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-02-26 20:21:32]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/2719552fb1469b9697a3ee8b15a537044fa6dd96