I didn't check yet for this particular one (Abstract / NS of the ctor) but for generics in Java, a type erasure is applied before emitting, the validation is done at compile time only.
Anyway, I've been bored to not get a damn about compilers, I started to study how works our compiler in more details, I haven't got the theory but finally found I guess a good book from which I can follow more how our compiler works. After that, I'm supposed at least to be able to do more things. Frédéric THOMAS ---------------------------------------- > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [Falcon] More NS for ctor ? (was: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration) > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 06:58:39 +0000 > > 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >
