Added new 'jerry_value_strict_equal' API function. #2725
Conversation
LaszloLango
added
api
docs/02.API-REFERENCE.md
Outdated
| @@ -1630,6 +1630,41 @@ jerry_value_is_undefined (const jerry_value_t value) | |||
|
|
|||
| - [jerry_release_value](#jerry_release_value) | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| ## jerry_value_strict_equal | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we gave strict equal check api, then maybe we should also have the simple logic operators also (<, >, ==). However that would be another PR if we decide to implement it.
LaszloLango
force-pushed
the
strict-equal
branch
3 times, most recently
from
58e047c to
c811850
Compare
Added new API function to perform strict equality comparison between 'jerry_value_t's from C code. JerryScript-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: László Langó [email protected]
LaszloLango
force-pushed
the
strict-equal
branch
from
c811850 to
9d724db
Compare
|
I've updated the PR. |
| /* | ||
| * Comparison functions | ||
| */ | ||
| jerry_value_t jerry_strict_equal (const jerry_value_t lhs, const jerry_value_t rhs); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If strict comparison is made part of the public API, shouldn't ecma_op_abstract_equality_compare have its API counterpart, too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The same was suggested by @galpeter. IMO, It would be nice to add other comparison features to the API as well. I think one new API function/PR is enough. I have two open PRs about this topic, so I do not want to open new similar PRs until these have not been merged.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, I've missed @galpeter 's suggestion. I'm not sure I completely agree with the one function in this PR though. The < and > operators aren't necessarily needed here, but === and == are quite related, so publishing them via API should happen together, IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@akosthekiss To have other comparison api functions was suggested in my post above, but I had another "idea" which was not written down yet: As we introduce more and more api functions for comparisons, does it make sense to have a single function for each of them or is it possible to have a single api function which can be configured to perform different kind of comparisons?
For example something like this (do not take the naming into account just the concept):
enum jerry_binary_operation {
JERRY_OP_STRICT_EQUALS, // lhs === rhs
JERRY_OP_EQUALS, // lhs == rhs
JERRY_OP_NOT_EQUAL, // lhs != rhs
JERRY_OP_LESS, // lhs < rhs
...
JERRY_OP_ADD, // lhs + rhs
};
jerry_value_t
jerry_op (jerry_binary_operation op, jerry_value_t lhs, jerry_value_t rhs);I'm not sure which approach is better: having api functions for each operation or having a single one. (Maybe this discussion needs its own issue.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@galpeter I like your idea, I will do it.
Added new API function to perform strict equality comparison
between 'jerry_value_t's from C code.
JerryScript-DCO-1.0-Signed-off-by: László Langó [email protected]