Ah ok, so, you answer my question :-)
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:35:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> Yes, you catch my drift, we need a new output type(PLAINJS) that only runs
> the compiler(to make AST from ActionScript) and the emitter to produce the
> js, no GCC, no SWF etc.
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS,
>> the
>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
>>
>> I'm fine with that approach as the FLEXJS_DUAL output type re-invokes the
>> compiler after the swf compilation to compile the JS with FLEXJS output
>> type.
>>
>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:27:03 -0400
>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration
>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>
>>> No, no more subclasses what I meant to say is if the output type is JS,
>> the
>>> client compiler will automatically configure the FlexJS emitter based on
>>> the fact it wants to produce clean JS.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Michael Schmalle <
>>> teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes, I don't want to miss that either, big up for you too Mike !!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not kidding myself, there is still a huge amount of work to be done
>> to
>>>> get it to work correctly based on externals that are more complicated
>> then
>>>> the ones I did right now. I think I managed to get packages(js
>> namespaces)
>>>> working but I really haven't tested them.
>>>>
>>>> On top of this, the FlexJS emitter needs a bunch of configuration added
>>>> through it's emitter stage (to not produce GCC comments, inherits etc).
>>>>
>>>> What will probably happen is there will just be a JS output type that
>>>> subclasses the FlexJS emitter and turns everything off, then it's not a
>>>> rats nest of config arguments.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:06:59 -0400
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ
>> Integration
>>>>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great job Fred, so this means we just need the FlexJS SDK and it will
>>>>> work
>>>>>> right? Do we still have to setup a library for code completion etc.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really want to try the JS.swc in this new build. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <
>>>>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand what you did but not sure I could reproduce, I wasn't
>> that
>>>>>>> far in my experiment but I still miss the complete round trip logic
>> of
>>>>>>> jBurg, I guess I would need to spend more time on it to get it
>> better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever, that's awesome, we can now compile and debug without any
>>>>>>> dependencies on the Flex SDK in IntelliJ :-) big up !!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will commit soon what I've done too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Frédéric THOMAS
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> From: aha...@adobe.com
>>>>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ
>>>>> Integration
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:19:47 +0000
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, I think I got it. Try my latest commit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/15, 12:41 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>OK, I will work on it. Thanks for trying, it is rather strange
>> stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 6/12/15, 9:16 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, I've been trying to get why I always get a cost "not
>> feasible"
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>your function but I'm failing to understand the logic of jBurg,
>> maybe
>>>>>>>>>>seing your solution will unligthen me but at the moment I'm totally
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>the dark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
