On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/17/15, 7:20 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Fred; The point is, you would have to rename every package level class > >>to > >> not get an ambiguous error in the IDE. > > > >Yes, but I guess it should be done for Object as there are no way to get > >it in IJ as it has a hardcoded definition, the JSObject option seems good > >to me, what about you ? > > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > What Fred is saying, Have JSObject extend Object. Thus JSObject would have all ES3 and ES5 Object properties and methods, thus IJ would code hint correctly because it's using it's builtin ECMA2 Object def and the JSObject would extend from that. As I said, this si complicated because on my end it would not be cut and dry how I could do this, would add a huge amount of indirection in the code for the externs compiler and FlexJS emitter if we didn't have metadata. > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? It uses an ECMA2 file for ActionScript which looks like a compiled SWF I would guess. It does not use the Object definitions from playerglobal in a Flex/ActionScript project > Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? It's code hinting. > I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? Well IJ and JetBrains really seem disinterested with ActionScript these days. > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > I would bet it wouldn't. The ambiguous error is coming from MXMLC/JSC, its our compiler that is barfing. Mike > > -Alex > > >
