Mike, I see what you mean, I've added a TODO for me in the Class emitter (where all the members are gathered ;-))
EdB On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Michael Schmalle <apa...@teotigraphix.com> wrote: > > Quoting Avi Kessner <akess...@gmail.com>: > >> Uneducated question here. >> If we can't read what is spit out, how can make tests to make sure that >> the >> gestalt is correct? > > > Erik didn't mean we can't read, when emitting all String data is pushed into > a Writer buffer. > > >> If we can read what is spit out, why not read it and remain stateless? > > > We can, he is saying go back and read what is in the buffer currently, which > he "could" do but would be extremely unwise. > > > >> I'm assuming that as time goes on, we'll want to read the output to >> optimize it on some level. > > > > No, we optimize when the output is being assembled. > > > > Erik; I just looked at the code again and remember, my head is whacked but, > instead of recording like you are in the method, I think "pre proccessing" > members in one shot before you loop through each to emit it would be a > better approach. > > My thought is, if in the future you need to pre-proccess any other things > before the member emittion, that it's all done in one place and you can have > state from that point. Using this, the emit methods will still be dumb, in > the fact they will only write out what currently exists. > > I think I will write something to show you what I mean in a day or two. > > Mike > > > Mike > > >> brought to you by the letters A, V, and I >> and the number 47 >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Michael Schmalle >> <apa...@teotigraphix.com>wrote: >> >>> I knew I looked at what you did before. >>> >>> I see no problem with that Erik, if you test visitAcessor() and it does >>> what you want and in the context of the method which is to test the >>> production of a unit where the unit here is a field and >>> Object.defineProperty() so that is good. >>> >>> Does my thinking about state make sense to you with this example? We are >>> trying to avoid crossed wires. >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> Quoting Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl>: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm aware we're trying to keep a state-less thing going with FJx, but >>>> I ran into an issue that I'm not sure how to solve without adding some >>>> kind of storage (private variable) on the 'goog' emitter. >>>> >>>> The thing is that a property has/can have both a getter and a setter >>>> accessor. For a full 'goog' implementation, in addition to emitting >>>> 'Object.defineProperty' for each, we also want to add a property >>>> declaration on the prototype, to set the type. We want to add this >>>> declaration only once, so my solution is to 'remember' if I already >>>> added it in a private variable, since I know of no other way of >>>> checking if I have already written something to the output. >>>> >>>> Am I doing it right? >>>> >>>> EdB >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ix Multimedia Software >>>> >>>> Jan Luykenstraat 27 >>>> 3521 VB Utrecht >>>> >>>> T. 06-51952295 >>>> I. www.ixsoftware.nl >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC >>> http://www.teotigraphix.com >>> http://blog.teotigraphix.com >>> >>> >> > > -- > Michael Schmalle - Teoti Graphix, LLC > http://www.teotigraphix.com > http://blog.teotigraphix.com > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
