See this is where I am clueless, is this a difference between backward
compatibility or something?
Like Object.create() not all older browsers support?
Mike
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Btw, this is the diff between Closure and Babel:
>
> goog.inherits = function (childCtor, parentCtor) {
> /** @constructor */
> function tempCtor() {
> };
> tempCtor.prototype = parentCtor.prototype;
> childCtor.superClass_ = parentCtor.prototype;
> childCtor.prototype = new tempCtor();
> /** @override */
> childCtor.prototype.constructor = childCtor;
> };
>
> function _inherits(subClass, superClass) {
> if (typeof superClass !== "function" && superClass !== null) {
> throw new TypeError("Super expression must either be null or a
> function, not " + typeof superClass);
> }
> subClass.prototype = Object.create(superClass && superClass.prototype,
> {
> constructor: {
> value: subClass,
> enumerable: false,
> writable: true,
> configurable: true
> }
> });
> if (superClass) subClass.__proto__ = superClass;
> }
>
>
> Frédéric THOMAS
>
> > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 09:36:50 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
> > From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> > To: dev@flex.apache.org
> >
> > 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
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
>
>
