On 8/11/15, 6:06 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Makes sense. I was just wondering why a MouseButton class is needed at
>> all and not just a plain String constant.
>
>Maybe is not, but I added, maybe I shouldn't had, isButton(button) =>
>boolean which tests to see which button was pressed during the event, the
>type of button is goog.events.BrowserEvent.MouseButton which is declared
>as enum in goog.events.BrowserEvent:
>
>/**
> * Normalized button constants for the mouse.
> * @enum {number}
> */
>goog.events.BrowserEvent.MouseButton = {
> LEFT: 0,
> MIDDLE: 1,
> RIGHT: 2
>};
>
>The closer things I know to match the package and look close to enum is
>the code I shown (well, I could have prevented the constructor to be
>called to be closer).
>
>The other solution would have been to let the developer fill the
>parameter with a uint or a constant but given that's a public API which
>is a wrapper to another public one, it seems to me it should be protected
>against bad values and should match as much as possible the google doc
>found for the wrapped class, I could be wrong to do that way though, that
>what why I asked before to continue this way for other classes which is
>btw more time consuming.
IMO, it would cause too much code bloat and take too much time to try to
protect inputs against bad values by adding classes like this. In my
vision for FlexJS, we might produce debug-time beads that have extra
checking of uints and strings done at the start of the method. In theory,
if you have tested your code before deploying, the production version
shouldn’t need this checking or extra class definitions. What is more
important to me right now is that we get just enough functionality to
allow customers to produce something useful. Folks did just fine with
current Flex not checking parameters, so I wouldn’t spend too much time on
something like this, but no objection if that’s what folks want.
-Alex
