Thanks, Attila! Answers inline.
Am 2016-01-12 um 14:21 schrieb Attila Szegedi:
+1; looks good overall. I’m fine with this being committed as it is.
Few somewhat unrelated thoughts that came to me as I was reviewing this:
- do we need toUint32 to return long anymore? Could it just return double?
There’s a place in the patch where we’re casting it.
It could return double, but most of its usage is for array indices which
still use int/long internally, so keeping the long return type seems
more natural.
- NashornPrimitiveLinker.canLinkTypeStatic: what about ES6 symbols? They’re
primitive values too, right? A primitive symbol value can have e.g. toString()
invoked on it (or in a more absurd case, any additional method added to
Symbol.prototype). Would that work similarly to how we can invoke methods on
other primitive values?
You're right, good catch! I'm filing a bug for this.
hannes
Attila.
On Jan 12, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Hannes Wallnoefer <hannes.wallnoe...@oracle.com>
wrote:
I uploaded a new webrev without the changes to the parser API.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8143896/webrev.03/
Note that parserapi.js.EXPECTED changes because of the changes in parserapi.js,
which is itself included in the files it parses.
Please review.
Hannes
Am 2016-01-11 um 16:57 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan:
As discussed offline, please leave Nashorn Parser API changes for a separate
issue.
-Sundar
On 1/11/2016 8:07 PM, Hannes Wallnoefer wrote:
I fixed a bug with converstion to number for the strict equality operator,
which also revealed some left over usage of long in Nashorn internals. New
webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8143896/webrev.02/
Hannes
Am 2016-01-11 um 13:48 schrieb Hannes Wallnoefer:
You are right of course, there needs to be consistency between typeof operator
and treatment as JS numbers.
This is in fact an unpleasant problem to solve. I've struggled trying to fix
this without breaking any existing code, but I've come to the conclusion that
it is not possible. Since we can't treat all Java longs/Longs as JS numbers,
we'd have to differentiate depending on whether the value can be represented as
double without losing precision.
In a way we already do this with optimistic types, but I consider it more a bug
than a feature. It's weird (and error prone) if the return value for a Java
method returning long is reported as number or object depending on the actual
value.
So I think the right thing to do is draw a clear line between which Java
primitive/wrapper types represent JS numbers and which don't. I've uploaded a
new webrev that implements this:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8143896/webrev.01/
Note that the only types to be treated as JS numbers are the direct wrapper
classes for Java primitives that can be fully represented as doubles. This
means also things like AtomicInteger and DoubleAdder will be reported and
treated as objects. I think that's the correct thing to do as they are not
primitive numbers in the first place. They are still converted to numbers when
used in such a context in JS. So I think the only place where this change is a
actually painful/surprising is longs.
Unfortunately the check for number type in JSType.isNumber gets a bit long as
we have to individually check for all primitive wrapper classes. I've done
extensive benchmarking and I don't think it has an impact on performance. In
any way, I wouldn't know how to handle this differently.
Let me know what you think.
Hannes
Am 2016-01-04 um 05:00 schrieb Sundararajan Athijegannathan:
I think I already commented on this webrev -- that we need to cover tests for
BigInteger, BigDecimal.
Also, I'm not sure linking Double and Int by nashorn primitive linkers is the right
solution. AtomicInteger, DoubleAdder etc. are all Number subtypes. We return
"number" when typeof is used on any Number subtype.
Now, that means JS code will see these as 'number' type objects -- yet
Number.prototype methods won't work on those!! I know this is hard problem --
we also have another (somewhat related) BigDecimal, BigInteger toString /
String conversion issue. We need to discuss this.
-Sundar
On 1/2/2016 8:29 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote:
+1
On Dec 18, 2015, at 3:54 PM, Hannes Wallnoefer <hannes.wallnoe...@oracle.com>
wrote:
Please review JDK-8143896: java.lang.Long is implicitly converted to double
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8143896/webrev/
Thanks,
Hannes
