OK thanks. I assume Closure is smart about these assignments? Otherwise
it seems wasteful to assign the same default value.
-Alex?
On 1/27/14 1:13 PM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>In my "other" projects I always assign an initial value to these
>properties.
>
>Closure is OK with empty strings and -1 (or whatever) for numbers.
>
>For complex types you will have to take into account that the type
>annotation must match the initial value, e.g. if you want null to be
>the initial value, the type must allow that, so that would be
>{?Object} - where the question mark indicates that a null value is
>allowed.
>
>EdB
>
>
>
>On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> I just tried to clean up some of the JSHint warnings in the JS code
>>we've
>> written for FlexJS. The first thing I ran into was the way we declare
>> uninitialized variables. An example is:
>>
>> /**
>> * @expose
>> * @type {string}
>> */
>> org.apache.flex.binding.BindingBase.prototype.sourceID;
>>
>> The closure linter is ok with this, but JSHint complains, expecting an
>>"="
>> and an initial value. I can't find any documentation on what Closure
>>says
>> is the right thing to do with uninitialized variables. So, what should
>>we
>> do? Should we simply assign null or undefined?
>>
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Ix Multimedia Software
>
>Jan Luykenstraat 27
>3521 VB Utrecht
>
>T. 06-51952295
>I. www.ixsoftware.nl
