So Alex, you are saying try what Bable produces for get/set and make sure I
make it swappable and not coupled in the emitter right?
What are you doing for nested function scopes? Just creating local
variables outside the function and referencing the current scope?
Mike
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
>
>
