Interesting stuff. Does anybody know if in Java or other languages that support abstract classes and private constructors whether that is handled by the runtime or by generated code? If generated code, what does the generated code look like? If by runtime, is there open source code that implements the runtime checking?
FWIW, this is potentially one of the advantages of testing your code in Flash/AIR. Certain kinds of checking can by done by the runtime which can be important when you’ve lost the strong type and are regaining it. For example, any time you coerce event.target to a more specific type other than IEventDispatcher, the runtime will check that your assumption is correct. -Alex On 6/13/15, 1:21 PM, "Michael Schmalle" <teotigraphix...@gmail.com> wrote: >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. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >>
