You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Once we have most of the outstanding changes applied, we should make sure things look consistent. I think we have resolved most of the inconsistencies already but probably some of them aren't implemented yet.
WGPUDeviceLostCallback takes arguments in a slightly odd order: device, reason, message, userdata1/2. To be consistent it would probably be either:
status, reason, message, device, userdata1/2
where status = Success(??), FailedCreation and reason = Unknown, Destroyed, InstanceDropped.
Splits status and reason similar to WGPUPopErrorScopeStatus, but "status" doesn't really make sense as this isn't the "return status" of an async operation like the others.
reason, message, device, userdata1/2 (just shuffling the order from what we have today).
While this makes a little more sense, it does not seem at all worth changing from what we have now.
Once we have most of the outstanding changes applied, we should make sure things look consistent. I think we have resolved most of the inconsistencies already but probably some of them aren't implemented yet.
Make sure all of the getters use the same styleShould be done after various changes (Replace EnumerateFeatures with GetFeatures #348, others)
Make sure all "complex" getters that may contain validation return a wgpu::Status?I think all error reporting should be consistent after Add and document many synchronous error statuses #377.
Make sure naming is consistentHaven't noticed any consistency problems in a while
WGPUDeviceLostCallback
see belowtype: array<struct.*>
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: