I already forgot the details, but I’m pretty sure that the tests I added covered this.
> On Jul 11, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I finally got back to this over my weekend. There were additional cases > like var n:Number = Number(xmlListRefThatIsNull) and quite a few other > edge cases. > > There is an alternative to Language.string just for XMLList which is used > if the value could be valid null, and if a null check is assumed to be not > needed (because there is a 'chain' and null at the beginning would cause a > runtime error in both VMs) then a String() coercion is used instead (which > forces toString instead of valueOf). > > You can see a bunch of tests here: > https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/blob/a259b4e4ce567313a8289df98ab500f65c97c174/frameworks/projects/XML/src/test/royale/flexUnitTests/xml/XMLListTesterGeneralTest.as#L420 > > As a quick follow-on, Harbs, in terms of the equality behavior: > re: "That also depends on the targetObject and targetProperty values. > It’s only undefined if there’s no targetObject OR there IS a > targetProperty." > > Do you have some test cases for this? I didn't quite 'get' this... if you > have test cases that define this please add them (with [Ignore] metadata if > they are failing) so I can address anything that is not working as it > should be. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 5:55 PM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I have most of it working: >> >> public function testEmptyListCoercion():void{ >> var node:XML = <type type="without name >> attribute"><val>2</val></type>; >> >> var list:XMLList = node.@name; >> >> var str:String = list; >> assertTrue(str == ''); >> >> str = 'test'+list; >> assertTrue(str == 'test'); >> >> var n:Number = Number(list); //WIP >> assertTrue(n == 0); >> >> n = 1+list; >> assertTrue(n == 1); >> >> var b:Boolean = Boolean(list); >> assertTrue(b === true); >> >> b = list || false; >> assertTrue(b === true); >> >> //non-empty coercion example >> list = node.val; >> n = 1+list; // this should be string concatentation ultimately >> coerced to Number >> assertTrue(n === 12); >> } >> >> Everything is passing there except for the >> var n:Number = Number(list); >> marked WIP and I am close with that also. There was no need to use >> XMLList.plus, but so far I am coercing xmlish and non-xmlish concatenation >> with String(xmlish) (and not with Language.string which triggers valueOf). >> I guess I need to check more complex concatenations with 3 or more elements >> being added as well. >> >> I will try to get it in tomorrow before I start my normal work hours. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:49 AM Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> I will look into it today. >>> >>> Unfortunately the instance level 'plus' method is not suitable for the >>> general case, because an XMLList reference can also be null which would >>> cause an error in the generated js code that would not be present in AVM, >>> although this is an edge case. But it does mean that for the general case, >>> if there is not native support via valueOf or toString etc, then it is >>> better to route things through a static method that covers the edge cases. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 8:26 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It looks like BinaryOperatorEmitter is supposed to be emitting .plus(), >>>> but it doesn’t seem to be doing so… >>>> >>>> Harbs >>>> >>>>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 6:32 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The logic should be something like this in pseudocode: >>>>> >>>>> if(isPlus && (isXMLish(righthand) || isXMLish(leftHand){ >>>>> if(isXM<Lish(leftHand){ >>>>> //output lefthand.plus(righthand) >>>>> }else{ >>>>> // output righthand.plus(lefthand) >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com <mailto: >>>> harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the compiler should be using the “plus” XML method for string >>>> concatenation of XML. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2022, at 5:36 PM, Greg Dove <greg.d...@gmail.com <mailto: >>>> greg.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (it does equal undefined), but it >>>>>>> seems it does concatenate as an empty string. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>
