> 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.
Btw, for those interested, that's the basis and a bit more but when you don't have, that's good to know: http://www.cs.umb.edu/j--/ Frédéric THOMAS ---------------------------------------- > From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: RE: [Falcon] More NS for ctor ? (was: [FlexJS] IntelliJ Integration) > Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:31:15 +0100 > > 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
