Canonicalize closures passed to native functions.

Canonicalize closures passed to native functions.
Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=5172

[ngeoffray, 2012-03-08 15:06:00]

Apologies, test is incomplete. I'll send you an update once it's done.

[kasperl, 2012-03-08 15:06:08]

LGTM.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
File frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart:1336: if (JS('bool', @'"$identity" in $0', closure))
{
The 'in' construct is probably not going to perform very well. How about
something like this:

   var function = JS('var', @'$0.$identity', closure);
   if (JS('bool', @'!!$0', function)) return function;

[ngeoffray, 2012-03-08 15:11:35]

Thanks Kasper

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
File frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart:1336: if (JS('bool', @'"$identity" in $0', closure))
{
On 2012/03/08 15:06:08, kasperl wrote:
> The 'in' construct is probably not going to perform very well. How about
> something like this:
> 
>    var function = JS('var', @'$0.$identity', closure);
>    if (JS('bool', @'!!$0', function)) return function;

OK, I copied the test from line 1276, I'll change it there too (unfortunately
the code cannot be shared because of how we analyze JS).

[ngeoffray, 2012-03-08 15:12:18]

On 2012/03/08 15:11:35, ngeoffray wrote:
> Thanks Kasper
> 
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
> File frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart (right):
> 
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
> frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart:1336: if (JS('bool', @'"$identity" in $0',
closure))
> {
> On 2012/03/08 15:06:08, kasperl wrote:
> > The 'in' construct is probably not going to perform very well. How about
> > something like this:
> > 
> >    var function = JS('var', @'$0.$identity', closure);
> >    if (JS('bool', @'!!$0', function)) return function;
> 
> OK, I copied the test from line 1276, I'll change it there too (unfortunately
> the code cannot be shared because of how we analyze JS).

Also, the test is now doing what it's supposed to do.

[ngeoffray, 2012-03-08 15:24:00]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
File frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/1/frog/leg/lib/js_helper....
frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart:1336: if (JS('bool', @'"$identity" in $0', closure))
{
On 2012/03/08 15:11:36, ngeoffray wrote:
> On 2012/03/08 15:06:08, kasperl wrote:
> > The 'in' construct is probably not going to perform very well. How about
> > something like this:
> > 
> >    var function = JS('var', @'$0.$identity', closure);
> >    if (JS('bool', @'!!$0', function)) return function;
> 
> OK, I copied the test from line 1276, I'll change it there too (unfortunately
> the code cannot be shared because of how we analyze JS).

There is actually a good reason why the code line 1276 uses 'in'. The exception
thrown may have been null. I have added a comment there.

[ahe, 2012-03-08 18:32:02]

DBC

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/5004/frog/leg/lib/js_help...
File frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9641018/diff/5004/frog/leg/lib/js_help...
frog/leg/lib/js_helper.dart:1277: // has, it could be set null if the thrown
value is null.
"set null" -> "null"