> I suspect Closure is trying to be more backwards compatible. I think
> Object. create() was added in ES5, and maybe they're aiming for ES3 there.
Correct, using Closure we guaranty compatibility < ES5 but I wonder if we are
good to do so, the reason was that companies were very stricks and allow only
one browser and update rarely, my experience tells me it less true and most of
the broswer are now autoupdated, (eg. Chrome, Firefox and even Opera now, ok,
maybe not IE), what others have as experience now days ?
A lot of work has been done with the Closure API already, not sure it has been
discussed before but another option would have been to write for ES5 browsers
and have a bootstrap to load ES5 polyfills if the Application runs under an
older browser, doing so, we could have emit the nice, out of the box more
powerfull ES5 code and I might be wrong but also faster than using Closure and
eventually emulate extra JS higher level functions like what Alex said about
the C -> B -> A issue when B doesn't override a A accessor and we want to
access it from C.
But maybe also, I don't see the all picture why we didn't do that.
Frédéric THOMAS
> Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:46:10 -0700
> Subject: Re: [FalconJX] JXEmitter accessors
> From: joshtynj...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> I suspect Closure is trying to be more backwards compatible. I think
> Object. create() was added in ES5, and maybe they're aiming for ES3 there.
>
> - Josh
> On May 28, 2015 7:11 AM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
