I don't like function overloading at all, it causes confusion, think about this:
public function dosth(a:int):String
{
return "aaa";
}
public function dosth(b:uint):String
{
return "bbb";
}
Then you call:
var s:String = dosth(15);
What you will get? Very confusing!
I do want AS3 to support data enumeration for example:
var s:String;
If we only want to s accept "hello" and "world", in the current AS3 we
typically declare a Class, define two public static constants:
public class Words
{
public static const HELLO:String = "hello";
public static const WORLD:String = "world";
}
And then we have to restrict the s variable to accept only those two words by
adding scripts that requires runtime support.
If we can do it like this:
public class Words
{
[Enumeration]
public static const HELLO:String = "hello";
[Enumeration]
public static const WORLD:String = "world";
}
var s:String.<Words>;
We can restrict the variable s thru compiler not runtime, it's a very useful
language feature and long missing by AS3.
In the example above, if you do this:
s = "other words";
The compiler will post an error.
I think you get what I mean.
By adding the [Enumeration] (or [Enum] for short) and String.<Words>
(TargetType.<AcceptEnumerationClass>), maybe we can do it by modifying the flex
compiler not the runtime.
I'm not a compiler or runtime expert, may someone share a thought about this,
thanks : )
Sent from DarkStone's iPhone
2014-01-23
> 在 2014年1月23日，15:58，Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> 写道：
>
> 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.
>
