> 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
I could be wrong but wrong but I would think it would work even though JSObject
doesn't extend Object.
When you construct JS.swc parsing the definition files, when you meet the Named
Object class, just re-write it as JSObject anywhere and while emitting the
final JS file, re-write it as Object, that wouldn' do the trick ?
>> If Adobe adds something to Object in
>> playerglobal/airglobal will IJ pick it up?
>>
>
> I would bet it wouldn't.
IJ would allow writing (without hints) and compile, due to the dynamic nature
of Object.
Frédéric THOMAS
----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 10:51:09 -0400
> Subject: Re: [FlaconJX] JS.swc design problems (was [FlexJS] IntelliJ
> Integration)
> From: teotigraphix...@gmail.com
> To: dev@flex.apache.org
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
