Well ... I ended up in not seperating code for constructor and method.
Too much redundant Code ;-). Just pushed few commits.
Cyrill
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
> Cyrill,
>
> I'm (usually) not easily offended ;-) My code is written in a
> "whatever gets me there first" style, so if you want to break it up,
> please feel free to refactor!
>
> On the topic of your code: will such code ever come from Flash Builder
> (or another IDE)? I mean: the code calls "super()", but there is no
> super class... Not saying we shouldn't handle this properly, just want
> to make sure I understand the test case.
>
> EdB
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Cyrill Zadra <cyrill.za...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> HI Erik
>>
>> Got following scenario:
>>
>> public function TestClass()
>> {
>> super();
>> }
>>
>> JSGoogEmiter produces following javascript ->
>>
>> /**
>> * @constructor
>> */
>> TestClass = function() {
>> var self = this;
>> goog.base(this);
>> };
>>
>> .. which produces a google closure error ->
>>
>> ERROR - incorrect use of goog.base: Could not find goog.inherits for base
>> class
>>
>> So I'm looking for a way where goog.base is only written if TestClass
>> has a superClass and I found the implementation for the output in
>> emitMethod... don't want to offend you.. but with all those conditions
>> in this method I'm a little confused .. can't we somehow seperate
>> method and constructor case?
>>
>> Cyrill
>
>
>
> --
> Ix Multimedia Software
>
> Jan Luykenstraat 27
> 3521 VB Utrecht
>
> T. 06-51952295
> I. www.ixsoftware.nl
