I've not looked to see if the compiler does that or the runtime. I think
it is the runtime isn't it?
-Alex
On 7/4/14 10:12 AM, "Gordon Smith" <gsmit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I think this syntax is just sugar for more verbose function calls like
>
>trace(foo.children("is"))
>
>but the terse syntax is much nicer.
>
>- Gordon
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jul 4, 2014, at 12:22 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> There are functions, but I've seen significant use of XML as an
>>"Object".
>> IMO it is what makes e4x possible: the dot-path lookup as below:
>>
>> Var foo:XML = <this><is><a name="test" /></is></this>
>>
>>
>> Trace(foo.is);
>> Trace(foo..a(@name=="test"));
>> Trace(foo..test);
>>
>> But I could be wrong and there is some other way to handle this.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>> On 7/3/14 12:51 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why does it need setter/getter? E4X is all functions isn't it?
>>>
>>> Yeah. JSON is generally a better way to go, but some APIs are still XML
>>> and then there's manipulation of XML documents (which I tend to do a
>>>lot
>>> of...)
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I took a quick look a while back. Required getter/setter support in
>>>>the
>>>> browser. And then the remaining question: will it perform? It is
>>>> similar
>>>> to the AMF question. Doable, but may not be faster than switching to
>>>> JSON.
>>>>
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/3/14 9:48 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone looked into writing a js library to copy the functionality
>>>>> of
>>>>> E4X?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that at least 90% of E4X could be pretty easily
>>>>> replicated
>>>>> in a js libraryŠ
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides namespaces, the only thing that seems hard to me is complex
>>>>> selectors.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, FlexJS is eventually going to need to find a way to warn folks
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> use of E4X
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
