On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 5:30 PM, <bodo.kai...@enabre.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to use a function which acts as internal exception shortcut
> unfortunately I cannot pass the current scope so I would create a new one.
> Is this whole strategy valid? If not how would it look right?
>
My understanding, based on previous discussions on this list, is that a
HandleScope is not needed at all if the code in question is being called
from JS space (because such a call has an implicit HandleScope around it).
Based on my own experience, your InvocationCallback and exception-thrower
look perfectly koster to me, but i would drop both of the HandleScopes -
IMO they are not needed because your InvocationCallback will be called from
JS-space in response to a Function call, and such calls have an implicit
Scope provided by the engine.
> Handle<Value> SomeMethod(const Arguments &args) {
>
> HandleScope scope:
>
> if (!args[0]->IsObject() || args[0]->IsArray())
>
>
if i'm not mistaken (and i might be), IsObject() will(???) also return true
for an Array because an Array is-a Object.
> return ThrowTypeError("Argument must be a object literal.");
> return scope.Close(args[0]->ToObject());
> };
>
> NODE_MODULE(test, init);
>
>
--
----- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/sgbeal
--
--
v8-users mailing list
v8-users@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-users
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"v8-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to v8-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
