On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Frédéric THOMAS <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 ? > Yes, BUT Falcon COMPC still needs an Object definition to compile! ;-) That is the sticker point here, you see my point? Although, maybe I could just include an empty Object and then it would matter in IJ. Still the emitter will need to know about JSObject to transform it back to Object during cross compile. Mike > > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >
