Use attributes to communicate failed lookup instead of retval.

Use attributes to communicate failed lookup instead of retval.


Committed: http://code.google.com/p/v8/source/detail?r=2363

[Mads Ager (chromium), 2009-07-01 15:06:59]

LGTM

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2
File src/objects.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2#newcode5814
Line 5814: return NULL;
We normally return Heap::undefined_value() when something is absent.

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2#newcode5822
Line 5822: PropertyAttributes* attrs) {
Why attrs in one method and attributes in another?  Make this one attributes
again?

[antonm, 2009-07-01 15:44:47]

Thanks a lot for review, Mads!

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2
File src/objects.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2#newcode5814
Line 5814: return NULL;
On 2009/07/01 15:06:59, Mads Ager wrote:
> We normally return Heap::undefined_value() when something is absent.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2#newcode5822
Line 5822: PropertyAttributes* attrs) {
On 2009/07/01 15:06:59, Mads Ager wrote:
> Why attrs in one method and attributes in another?  Make this one attributes
> again?

To fit ln. 5828 into single line :)  If it was a bad idea, I'd revert of course.

[Mads Ager (chromium), 2009-07-01 16:19:56]

On 2009/07/01 15:44:47, antonm wrote:
> http://codereview.chromium.org/151151/diff/1/2#newcode5822
> Line 5822: PropertyAttributes* attrs) {
> On 2009/07/01 15:06:59, Mads Ager wrote:
> > Why attrs in one method and attributes in another?  Make this one attributes
> > again?
> 
> To fit ln. 5828 into single line :)  If it was a bad idea, I'd revert of
course.

I would prefer readable names and break this one line. :-)

And still LGTM!