FWIW, I did not test goog.inherit against Object.getPrototypeOf. It might
not work as some libraries may not use vanilla prototype inheritance. So
abstracting that piece will provide more flexibility.
-Alex
On 5/28/15, 6:25 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fred,
>
>I said TS only because Josh said it looked nice, the came Josh with Bable
>and Joa said Babel.
>
>Right now it's the whole class structure that needs a template.
>
>> Yes but given I'm more than busy, would be nice if you write it first in
>AS :)
>
>I meant copy and paste, I didn't mean write it. Don't worry about it.
>
>I'm still confused as usual so I guess I will wait until things sink in
>more. I have done this a couple times and what I learned is I need a spec
>first before I start writing the code.
>
>I'm setting aside about 3 hours a day to work on this, so I guess I will
>start with the basic tests in expression and start to fiddle form there.
>
>Alex, Josh any thoughts?
>
>Mike
>
>
>On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > You mean if AS3 and ES6 inherit the same way correct? I wouldn't know
>>the
>> > answer to this I guess all we can do is try it right? :)
>>
>> Nope, I meant Babel and TS because you said you will base your tests on
>> the TS ones, so, if you emit a such utility function, be sure first we
>> extend classes in the same way than Babel hoping TS does the same.
>>
>> > I guess one of the other questions is how it handles/outputs anonymous
>> > function call scope, you want to do a test with that? Like three or so
>> > levels nested.
>>
>> Yes but given I'm more than busy, would be nice if you write it first in
>> AS :)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:51:20 -0400
>> > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > So what is different about this?
>> > > >
>> > > > The only thing I can think of is that we introduce utility
>>functions
>> to
>> > > do
>> > > > the work
>> > >
>> > > Yes, that, I guess both of the language inherit in the same way, if
>> yes,
>> > > this function is re-usable IMO
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > You mean if AS3 and ES6 inherit the same way correct? I wouldn't know
>>the
>> > answer to this I guess all we can do is try it right? :)
>> >
>> > I'm going to create a branch in falcon jxemitter and start working on
>>it.
>> >
>> > I guess one of the other questions is how it handles/outputs anonymous
>> > function call scope, you want to do a test with that? Like three or so
>> > levels nested.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > >
>> > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 08:38:16 -0400
>> > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > >
>> > > > Well yes, I follow the logic. I don't understand if this is a
>> solution,
>> > > why
>> > > > TypeScript doesn't use the same algorithm.
>> > > >
>> > > > I read what the developers said and they said they had talked
>>about
>> it in
>> > > > length when the project first started and came to the conclusion
>> there
>> > > > really is no solution.
>> > > >
>> > > > So what is different about this?
>> > > >
>> > > > The only thing I can think of is that we introduce utility
>>functions
>> to
>> > > do
>> > > > the work and they didn't want to do that, I did get this from the
>> > > > conversation, they stated they wanted it to be plain javascript,
>>the
>> only
>> > > > helper they use is _extends function they write out for
>>inheritance.
>> > > >
>> > > > I was thinking about TypeScript, other than the language
>>difference,
>> > > there
>> > > > is really NO difference in our compiler and what they do. Which is
>> cool
>> > > > because all the usecases that they have will apply to this
>>emitter.
>> > > >
>> > > > Plus we have libraries and IDE support and possible MXML in the
>> future.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mike
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I'm not a javascript guru either, but it was easy to create ES6
>> classes
>> > > > > (left pane) and see the output (right pane), so, for the
>>setter, it
>> > > creates:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For class A (simple):
>> > > > >
>> > > > > get: function () {
>> > > > > return this._property;
>> > > > > },
>> > > > > set: function (value) {
>> > > > > this._property = value;
>> > > > > }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > For class B:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > set: function (value) {
>> > > > > _set(Object.getPrototypeOf(B.prototype), "property",
>> value,
>> > > > > this);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which calls:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > var _set = function set(object, property, value, receiver) {
>> > > > > var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object,
>>property);
>> //
>> > > Get
>> > > > > the property on B
>> > > > > if (desc === undefined) { // If not overrided, will set the
>> parent
>> > > > > recursively if the parent doesn't override the property either.
>> > > > > var parent = Object.getPrototypeOf(object);
>> > > > > if (parent !== null) {
>> > > > > set(parent, property, value, receiver);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > } else if ("value" in desc && desc.writable) { // didn't get
>> this
>> > > part
>> > > > > desc.value = value;
>> > > > > } else { // Else call the setterv of this Object
>> > > > > var setter = desc.set;
>> > > > > if (setter !== undefined) {
>> > > > > setter.call(receiver, value);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > return value;
>> > > > > };
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > get: function () {
>> > > > > return _get(Object.getPrototypeOf(B.prototype),
>> "property",
>> > > > > this);
>> > > > > },
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Which calls:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > this for the getter, do recursive call to the prototype to check
>> if the
>> > > > > property has been overriden, if Yes, get the value.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > var _get = function get(_x, _x2, _x3) {
>> > > > > var _again = true;
>> > > > > _function: while (_again) {
>> > > > > var object = _x, property = _x2, receiver = _x3;
>> > > > > desc = parent = getter = undefined;
>> > > > > _again = false;
>> > > > > var desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(object,
>> property);
>> > > > > if (desc === undefined) {
>> > > > > var parent = Object.getPrototypeOf(object);
>> > > > > if (parent === null) {
>> > > > > return undefined;
>> > > > > } else {
>> > > > > _x = parent;
>> > > > > _x2 = property;
>> > > > > _x3 = receiver;
>> > > > > _again = true;
>> > > > > continue _function;
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > } else if ("value" in desc) {
>> > > > > return desc.value;
>> > > > > } else {
>> > > > > var getter = desc.get;
>> > > > > if (getter === undefined) {
>> > > > > return undefined;
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > return getter.call(receiver);
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > }
>> > > > > };
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Does it do the trick ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:47:45 -0400
>> > > > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Interesting Fred, I am no javascript guru so I need people to
>> "tell"
>> > > me
>> > > > > > what I should have output.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So let me get this straight, the left pane is ES6 and it
>> converted
>> > > it to
>> > > > > > ES5 in the right pane?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> > > > > webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I just tried in babel, see what it generates:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>>
>>http://babeljs.io/repl/#?experimental=true&evaluate=true&loose=false&spec
>>=false&code=class%20A%20{%0A%09constructor%28%29%20{%0A%09%20%20this._pro
>>perty%20%3D%20%22init%22%3B%0A%09}%0A%09get%20property%28%29%3Astring%20{
>>%0A%09%09return%20this._property%3B%0A%09}%0A%09%0A%09set%20property%28va
>>lue%3Astring%29%20{%0A%09%09this._property%20%3D%20value%3B%0A%09}%20%0A%
>>09%0A%09showMyValue%28%29%20{%0A%09%09alert%28this._property%29%3B%0A%09}
>>%0A%0A}%0A%0Aclass%20B%20extends%20A%20{%0A%09get%20property%28%29%3Astri
>>ng%20{%0A%09%09return%20super.property%3B%0A%09}%0A%09%0A%09set%20propert
>>y%28value%3Astring%29%20{%0A%09%09super.property%20%3D%20value%3B%0A%09}%
>>0A}
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Frédéric THOMAS
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 06:54:31 -0400
>> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
>> > > > > > > > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > To: dev@flex.apache.org
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I’m still surprised that in 2015, TS hasn’t been forced
>>to
>> > > handle
>> > > > > > > super.
>> > > > > > > > Are people not using inheritance much in TS?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > They tell them to use standard getValue(), setValue() in
>>the
>> > > > > property if
>> > > > > > > > they need inheritance overrides.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I'm kind of bummed about this whole thing, I stuck my
>>foot in
>> > > mouth
>> > > > > here,
>> > > > > > > > since I totally forgot about this stuff. Since I really
>> wanted
>> > > to do
>> > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > for Josh's POC, I am interested in what he "needs" to get
>>his
>> > > project
>> > > > > > > > working, Josh?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alex Harui <
>> aha...@adobe.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On 5/27/15, 4:16 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <
>> > > teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >Ok, This needs to be clear to me before I go off to OZ.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >In Flex JS you have;
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >Object.defineProperties(Base.prototype, /** @lends
>> > > > > {Base.prototype}
>> > > > > > > */ {
>> > > > > > > > > >/** @expose */
>> > > > > > > > > >text: {
>> > > > > > > > > >get: /** @this {Base} */ function() {
>> > > > > > > > > > return "A" +
>> > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superGetter(Base,
>> > > > > this,
>> > > > > > > > > >'text');
>> > > > > > > > > >},
>> > > > > > > > > >set: /** @this {Base} */ function(value) {
>> > > > > > > > > > if (value !=
>> > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superGetter(Base,
>> > > > > this,
>> > > > > > > > > >'text')) {
>> > > > > > > > > > org_apache_flex_utils_Language.superSetter(Base,
>>this,
>> > > 'text',
>> > > > > > > "B" +
>> > > > > > > > > >value);
>> > > > > > > > > > }
>> > > > > > > > > >}}}
>> > > > > > > > > >);
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >I must use this obviously since hardly any actionscript
>> could
>> > > be
>> > > > > cross
>> > > > > > > > > >compiled if you can't call super accessors.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I’m still surprised that in 2015, TS hasn’t been forced
>>to
>> > > handle
>> > > > > > > super.
>> > > > > > > > > Are people not using inheritance much in TS?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >Alex, when you have time, can you explain what this is
>> doing
>> > > so I
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > >implement it.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I have not read the spec, but Object.defineProperties
>> appears
>> > > to
>> > > > > > > associate
>> > > > > > > > > a data structure with a “class”. When asked to
>> > > interpret/execute
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Someinstance.someprop
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > the JS runtime appears to check this data structure
>>first,
>> and
>> > > > > call the
>> > > > > > > > > get or set as needed. As I see it, there is no way to
>> switch
>> > > from
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > SomeSubClass.someProp
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > back to
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > SomeBaseClass.someProp
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > and retain the ‘this’ pointer and scope. If you had a
>> variable
>> > > > > called
>> > > > > > > > > super it would still point to the same instance so
>> > > super.someProp
>> > > > > would
>> > > > > > > > > just cause the runtime to find the subclass’s property
>>map.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > In looking around the internet, the solutions seemed to:
>> > > > > > > > > 1) get the superclass
>> > > > > > > > > 2) get the property map of defined properties
>> > > > > > > > > 3) get the getter or setter from the data structure
>> > > > > > > > > 4) call it with the right ‘this’ pointer.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > So that’s what is in the current JSFlexJSEmitter, but it
>> > > assumes
>> > > > > > > > > goog.inherit is going to leave references to the base
>> class in
>> > > a
>> > > > > > > > > particular way. TS probably leaves references to base
>> classes
>> > > some
>> > > > > > > how so
>> > > > > > > > > some abstraction around step 1 is probably required, but
>> steps
>> > > 2
>> > > > > > > through 4
>> > > > > > > > > can be the same.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > It is step 4 that re-introduces “re-writing” that you
>>may
>> be
>> > > > > referring
>> > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > as hell. The super setter again becomes a function
>>call,
>> so
>> > > the
>> > > > > AST
>> > > > > > > walk
>> > > > > > > > > needs to know that and walk the tree differently,
>>saving a
>> > > whole
>> > > > > > > branch to
>> > > > > > > > > be evaluated as the parameter to the function call.
>>IOW, a
>> > > binary
>> > > > > > > > > operator becomes a function call. I’ll bet there are
>>still
>> > > bugs
>> > > > > in the
>> > > > > > > > > current JSFlexJSEmitter.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > And I think I still haven’t fixed the scenario where
>>only a
>> > > getter
>> > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > setter is overridden. The generated code must
>>propagate a
>> > > “pass
>> > > > > > > through”
>> > > > > > > > > for the missing getter or setter to the subclass’s data
>> > > structure
>> > > > > > > > > otherwise the runtime will not find the setter or getter
>> and
>> > > think
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > property is now read-only or write-only.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >So correct me if I am wrong but, since there is really
>>no
>> > > solution
>> > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > >an external utility to call a super accessor, we can't
>> really
>> > > say
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > >this
>> > > > > > > > > >transpiler is producing vanilla javascript. Chicken egg
>> thing.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Technically, you could inline everything in the utility
>> > > function
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > > > > called it vanilla. But it would be high-fat vanilla.
>>;-)
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > A question for Josh is whether it would be ok to have a
>> Google
>> > > > > Closure
>> > > > > > > > > Library dependency. These libraries exist to
>>encapsulate
>> some
>> > > of
>> > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > object oriented patterns like finding the base class and
>> > > loading
>> > > > > > > > > dependency definitions in a particular order. It seems
>>to
>> be
>> > > > > somewhat
>> > > > > > > > > pay-as-you-go. If no inheritance, then almost no
>>“goog”.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > -Alex
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>>
