I think we can do a partial implementation by preprocessing and renaming functions without runtime changes, but it will have limitations like using ["functionName"]() syntax won't work.
On 1/22/14 10:22 PM, "Avi Kessner" <akess...@gmail.com> wrote: >Does function overloading require changes to the runtime? >On Jan 22, 2014 9:30 PM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I looked over the spec to refresh my memory. In addition to user-defined >> namespaces, other things that were dropped were E4X, undefined, >>prototypes, >> and dynamic classes. Basically, AS4 became more like Java and less like >> Javascript. Dropping any of these things would have a large impact on >>Flex. >> But none of them have to be dropped. You could cherry-pick the additions >> (as long as they are implementable on the existing runtime) rather than >>the >> removals. >> >> - Gordon >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gordon Smith [mailto:gosm...@adobe.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:20 AM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell? >> >> > the main thrust of the language was a totally new language geared for >> functional programming, and then some backward compatibility stuff to >>make >> it seem more like ActionScript. >> >> I wouldn't characterize it that way. To me it felt like incremental >>change >> to AS3. There were still classes and interfaces so I'm not sure what you >> mean by "geared for functional programming"; to me it was still >>definitely >> an object-oriented language. It did add "strong function types"'; for >> example >> >> var f:(int, int)=>String; >> >> declared a variable that could only contain a reference to a function >>that >> took two ints and returned a String. It also added array types like >> >> var a:[]int; >> >> - Gordon >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:06 AM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org >> Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? >> >> >> >> On 1/22/14 10:55 AM, "Gordon Smith" <gosm...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> >Adobe designed AS4 to be the language for a new Flash runtime ("V12") >> >that it was working on but dropped. (I was working on the AS4 compiler >> >then.) Not all features of AS4 can be implemented -- at least not >> >easily and efficiently -- on the existing Flash runtime. However, some >> >features can be. >> > >> >Alex, I suggest that you try to arrange for the donation of the >> >incomplete AS4 compiler to Apache for cherry-picking. >> Well, donations take a lot of time and energy. I would rather we know >> there is something we want and doesn't require runtime implementation >> before expending that energy. >> >> I haven't looked at the AS4 docs, and Gordon certainly knows better, but >> my takeaway from past discussions about AS4 was that it had dual >> personalities: the main thrust of the language was a totally new >>language >> geared for functional programming, and then some backward compatibility >> stuff to make it seem more like ActionScript. Sure you could call that >>an >> improvement, but I'm not clear it would be an incremental improvement. >>It >> would be like rewriting the framework in Lisp. >> >> > >> >- Gordon >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Kessler CTR Mark J [mailto:mark.kessler....@usmc.mil] >> >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:32 AM >> >To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >Subject: RE: ActionScript 4? What the hell? >> > >> > Well using the assumption that AS 4 would be an improvement in some >> >area's from AS3 even if it was an incomplete work. While I haven't >> >looked at it yet, I would be interested in just seeing the differences >> >and bring over small pieces that could be an improvement for us. >> >Assuming it wasn't in the same direction as ASC 2 which started getting >> >rid of things we use. >> > >> >-Mark >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >> >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:20 PM >> >To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? >> > >> >I'm not sure what the rules are. The language reference is under >> >Apache license. The specifications are under CC-NC which is not good. >> >I suppose I could try to get that changed. >> > >> >But first, come up with something you do want to cherry pick that >> >doesn't require implementation in the runtime. >> > >> >-Alex >> > >> >On 1/22/14 8:39 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> >> >wrote: >> > >> >>Since this is hosted publicly but not donated, I assume we cannot >> >>cherry pick any good changes from as4... >> >> >> >>-Mark >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: bkelley [mailto:brady.kel...@cleantelligent.com] >> >>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:15 AM >> >>To: dev@flex.apache.org >> >>Subject: Re: ActionScript 4? What the hell? >> >> >> >>DarkStone wrote >> >>> I believe Adobe said in the flash runtime roadmap that AS4 was >>dropped: >> >>> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html >> >>> >> >>> Now they reopen AS4 on GitHub, what does it mean? >> >> >> >>From the read me on the github project: "Adobe is publishing the >> >>ActionScript 4 specifications in the hope that they may be useful to >> >>the programming language and managed runtime communities. The >> >>specifications are as they existed when the project with which they >> >>were associated was discontinued and therefore may be considered >> >>incomplete. Source code for the compiler and runtime is not available. >> >>Adobe has no plans to resume development of ActionScript 4." >> >> >> >>Looks like it is just for reference only, Adobe has no plans to >> >>continue development, unfortunately. :-( >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>View this message in context: >> >>http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/ActionScript-4-Wh >> >>at- >> >>t >> >>he-hell-tp34089p34106.html >> >>Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at >>Nabble.com. >> > >> >>
