Interesting, the byte code option is probably the best. I have no experience in that part of the compiler(ABC emitter). I know it just emits byte arrays but I get lost in there. :)
Mike On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Oups, I meant -optimize=true, that the optimization process that erase the > annotations gather all the actions in one IIRC. > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > ---------------------------------------- > > From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com > > To: dev@flex.apache.org > > Subject: [Falcon] More NS for ctor ? (was: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration) > > Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:01:48 +0100 > > > > IIRC, I've been able to make the compiler to not complain when having > private and protected NS to the constructor, the player doesn't expect > anything except public, so, the trick was to add an internal annotation on > the class (not possible on the constructor itself) to keep that information > and replace the constructor wit public to make FP happy, later in the > compilation process, when examining the annotation, add the information to > the class definition and later again report a problem if the code try to > instantiate a protected / private class, I guess, it could work even for > custom NS. > > > > Note: the annotation is lost when compiling with -debug=false or > -optimize=false > > > > Another option could have been to include in the generated constructor > the byte code around the user one that I use in AS when I create an > abstract or a private class as shown here > https://gist.github.com/doublefx/b1173808e34ad35d8d40 > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Frédéric THOMAS > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 12:23:16 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration > >> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > >> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Yep, would like to see private / protected constructors, method > >>> overloading, generics and lambda in falcon to overwhelm any competitor > :-) > >>> > >> > >> > >> I wish I got paid doing this because I would take 3 months of my life > and > >> learn the low level of compiler theory and engineering and I could > >> implement it in the compiler. > >> > >> That is what sucks, the ActionScript language COULD compete with these > >> languages out today as a progressive language, but there is no money > behind > >> it to drive innovation. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> I've been trying time ago for private / protected constructors using > class > >>> annotation in the compiler, I wasn't far but lost all my job with my > >>> computer :-( and wasn't easy for me as I'm not a compiler guy. > >>> > >>> I guess the same principle could use for method overloading, not sure > for > >>> generics but why not as at the end, it is only compile time checking > and > >>> the info could be erase at runtime as done in Java. > >>> > >> > >> Can you show me examples of what you were doing? Start a new thread if > you > >> do. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >>> > >>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 11:40:22 -0400 > >>>> Subject: Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration > >>>> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com > >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Frédéric THOMAS < > >>> webdoubl...@hotmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Btw, what happen when you compile JS.swc stuffs in AS ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, the only reason for the JS.swc is code completion and compile > API. > >>>> You know, just tricks the compiler into thinking JS DOM calls are > >>>> actionscript and does correct type checking. > >>>> > >>>> Basically think of the PLAINJS output type as a little "TypeScript" > >>>> compiler. Justa quick AST generation and AST walk to emit JS code, > done. > >>> :) > >>>> > >>>> Mike > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Frédéric THOMAS > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>>>> From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com > >>>>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > >>>>>> Subject: RE: Re : Re: Re : Re: AW: AW: AW: [FlexJS] IntelliJ > >>> Integration > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:31:32 +0100 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
