Add comments to SimpleSynchronousEntry callbacks.

Add comments to SimpleSynchronousEntry callbacks.

Name the parameters and comment on their meaning. I was adding another
one of these for checksums, and I found it was getting
confusing. These comments should help.

R=rvargas@chromium.org,pasko@chromium.org,felipeg@chromium.org
BUG=None


Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=193056

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=193390

[gavinp, 2013-04-07 17:28:16]

Folks, WDYT?

[pasko-google - do not use, 2013-04-08 09:25:13]

lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/1/net/disk_cache/simple/simple_...
File net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/1/net/disk_cache/simple/simple_...
net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h:30: // thread safe, and callers
must insure that it is only ever accessed from
s/insure/ensure/

??

[gavinp, 2013-04-08 11:26:03]

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/1/net/disk_cache/simple/simple_...
File net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/1/net/disk_cache/simple/simple_...
net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h:30: // thread safe, and callers
must insure that it is only ever accessed from
On 2013/04/08 09:25:13, pasko wrote:
> s/insure/ensure/
> 
> ??

Both words are valid, see
http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?id=A5502000 .

Ensure has the narrower meaning. I'm doing the change. Done.

[rvargas (doing something else), 2013-04-08 22:49:43]

rbstmp lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/17001/net/disk_cache/simple/sim...
File net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/17001/net/disk_cache/simple/sim...
net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h:38: typedef
base::Callback<void(SimpleSynchronousEntry* /* new_entry */)>
nit: any reason for not using the argument name without commenting it out?

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-09 06:46:34]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/gavinp@chromium.org/13757005/17001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-09 09:17:40]

Change committed as 193056

[gavinp, 2013-04-09 17:51:17]

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/17001/net/disk_cache/simple/sim...
File net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/13757005/diff/17001/net/disk_cache/simple/sim...
net/disk_cache/simple/simple_synchronous_entry.h:38: typedef
base::Callback<void(SimpleSynchronousEntry* /* new_entry */)>
On 2013/04/08 22:49:44, rvargas wrote:
> nit: any reason for not using the argument name without commenting it out?

The reason is that cdecl v2.5 does not support named arguments in pointers to
functions, and I use it to test my pointer to function definitions. Thanks for
pointing this out, I'll do another upload shortly removing the comments.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-10 13:36:03]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/gavinp@chromium.org/13757005/26002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-10 15:23:43]

Change committed as 193390