I think this will work.
My only concern is the "...hidden..."; but I think you already plan to
address that separately.
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4
File src/api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4#newcode1920
Line 1920: static_cast(None));
use ReadOnly?
Looks good -
My only concern is the "...hidden...", but I think you plan to address
that separately.
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4
File src/api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4#newcode1920
Line 1920: static_cast(None));
use ReadOnly?
http://codereview.
Looks good -
My only concern is the "...hidden...", but I think you plan to address
that separately.
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4
File src/api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4#newcode1920
Line 1920: static_cast(None));
use ReadOnly?
http://codereview.
LGTM. My only real concern is the timing of the commit; I'd prefer not
to get this pushed to trunk as part of the 1.0.4 push that I hope we can
land real soon (blocked on issue 265).
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff/1/4
File src/api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/40324/diff
Overall, this looks good. I agree with Kasper on the timing. We need
to get the new compiler pushed to trunk before landing this in
bleeding_edge. Once we land this in bleeding_edge, we need to make sure
that the real hiding of the property happens fairly quickly so we are
not blocked from push
LGTM.
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/2
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/2#newcode1267
Line 1267: CHECK_NE(hash, hash2);
Is this really guaranteed? Freaky.
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/2#newcode1270
Line 1270: CHECK_NE
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/2
File test/cctest/test-api.cc (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/2#newcode1267
Line 1267: CHECK_NE(hash, hash2);
On 2009/03/19 17:46:03, Kasper Lund wrote:
> Is this really guaranteed? Freaky.
I will add a comment that if two consecu
LGTM
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/3
File include/v8.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/3#newcode1080
Line 1080: * Returns the identity hash for this object.
We should state in the API that one of the hidden value keys is used by
this call (the potential for co
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/3
File include/v8.h (right):
http://codereview.chromium.org/50016/diff/1/3#newcode1080
Line 1080: * Returns the identity hash for this object.
On 2009/03/19 18:21:44, Mads Ager wrote:
> We should state in the API that one of the hidden value keys is us
