On 5/27/15, 3:37 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, that is semantics that challenge me, the get_, set_ was kludge and I
>hate kludge. :)
I’m not sure of your definition of “kludge” but while
Object.defineProperties is quite cool for translating:
function get foo():int
{
}
function set foo(value:int):void
{
}
The way Object.defineProperties works make it ugly to handle:
override function get foo():int
{
return super.foo;
}
override function set foo(value:int):void
{
super.foo = value;
}
At least, it seems pretty awful to me but I haven’t looked at what TS
produces. Maybe they have a better way. Plus there is more trickery if
the subclass only overrides the getter and not the setter and vice versa.
There is another scenario where the class C extends B and class B extends
A and A has a getter or setter, B does not override it, but C does.
Good luck,
-Alex
