> Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object?
Well, I'm not sure, I propose but could it be messed up if the inheritance was on JSObject for the Object based classes in JS.swc but still emitted with Object in the produced JS file ? > Wouldn’t that mess up inheritance from everything that extends Object? > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? Ij predefined what Flex built-ins should be in <IntelliJ IDEA>\plugins\JavaScriptLanguage\lib\JavaScriptLanguage.jar!\com\intellij\lang\javascript\index\predefined\ECMAScript.js2 see its content https://gist.github.com/doublefx/5227193a9ca83dda105e So, for all those classes, we'll have harcoded hints, it will still compile. What I meant is if it is not that hard to parse the Object definition to JSObject and use this reference in JS.swc then emit Object, it would give us the completion in IJ > If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? >From what I get, we won't have the completion but it will compile. > Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? Well, they barely answer when a bug is filled by now and don't fix it Frédéric THOMAS ---------------------------------------- > From: aha...@adobe.com > To: dev@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ > Integration) > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 14:29:47 +0000 > > > > 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? > Can I get a more detailed technical understanding of this issue? How does > IJ have a hard coded definition? Is this just for code completion in the > editor or is it compile time as well? I would think that if they are > calling our compiler that we could control this issue. Is this a bug > worth filing against IJ? If Adobe adds something to Object in > playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up? > > -Alex > >
